Thursday, 1 December 2016

THURSDAY, 1 DECEMBER 2016

THURSDAY, 1 DECEMBER 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 6 December, the Government will look to complete the remaining stages of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill, the second reading of the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill, the third reading of the Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill, and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday, 7 December will be a members’ day.

Points of Order

Speakers and Presiding Officers—Ministerial Responsibility for Vote Parliamentary Service

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise an important constitutional point of order, and I do ask that you not necessarily give a view now, but you deliberate on this over the weekend and advise us of your view on the next sitting day—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order will be heard in silence.

RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This relates to the application of the Public Finance Act 1989 where the “ ‘appropriation Minister’,—(a) in relation to an appropriation made to an Office of Parliament, means the Speaker;”. This appears to contradict your view that you are not a member of the Government, when you are in respect of Vote Parliamentary Service, and especially for the costs involved in the new parliamentary building.

Mr SPEAKER: I will give it some very considerable thought over the weekend and come back to the member.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Child Protection Reforms—Māori Children

1. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development: Is it her intention to retain the provision in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 that requires that priority be given to placing a child with “a person who is a member of the child’s or young person’s hapu or iwi (with preference being given to hapu members), or if that is not possible, who has the same tribal, racial, ethnic, or cultural background as the child” in her upcoming reform of the Act; if not, what specifically is she proposing the provision be amended to?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Tēnā koe, e Te Kaiwhakawā, ko Te Reo rua! Tuatahi, ko te tino ngako o tēnei whakakitenga hou, kia ora ngā tamariki katoa me ngā kaupapa here e whai ake, me ngā tautoko katoa i roto i Te Mana Whakahou, ā, nō reira, kia mōhio Te Whare Pāremata nei ko te tikanga o tēnei kaupapa, kia ora ngā tamariki katoa.

[Thank you, and second language, Mr Speaker. Firstly, the earnest desire of this new revelation is that all children, policies, and all the support contained in the right of renewal are well, and so this Parliament must understand that the convention of this provision is that all children are well.]

As I have said from the very beginning, and will continue to say, the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki will put the safety and well-being of children and young people first, above everything else. When making decisions about a child, decision makers will have to consider, whenever possible, that the relationship between the child or young person and their family, whānau, and usual caregiver is respected, supported, and strengthened; that the relationship between the child or young person and their siblings is respected, supported, and strengthened; and that the family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and usual caregiver have a voice and a role in decisions made about their child or young person.

Jan Logie: Was that the specific amendment that is being proposed to the Act?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: As the bill has not yet been introduced, it would be inappropriate for there to be a discussion about specific provisions. However, once the bill is introduced there will be significant opportunity for submissions.

Jan Logie: Why is she proposing to remove the principle from section 5 of the Act that requires consideration to be given to how a decision will affect the stability of that child or young person’s whānau, hapū, or iwi given that for tamariki Māori their well-being is inextricably linked to the well-being of their whānau and hapū?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because I am not familiar with the specific detail of clause numbers and provisions, as the member has put it, I am going to answer on the basis that—as I said in answer to the primary question—the core purpose of this transformation is to ensure that children are safe and in a stable and loving home. Therefore, the provisions that will be outlined in the bill will be directed at that outcome.

Darroch Ball: Given that answer, can she confirm that if she removes this race-based provision in the Act, does she then agree with New Zealand First that the ultimate priority should always be the safety, care, and protection of any child, regardless of the iwi, hapū, race, culture, or ethnicity?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: In answer to the first part of the question: no. In answer to the second part of the question: we consider the cultural context, identity, and language of the children whose safety has to be assured. That is an intrinsic part of it.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Tēnā koe, Te Minita. Can you clarify whether the principles informing the bill provide preference towards whakapapa and whānau when making decisions about the care and protection of tamariki?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I cannot confirm that, but what I can confirm is that the Māori Party has been making powerful advocacy to the Minister and the Government, and that process of discussion is ongoing.

Jan Logie: Does she agree that a truly child-centred approach would ensure that tikanga Māori, particularly around connection to whakapapa and whānau, would be of paramount importance, given that tamariki Māori make up 61 percent of children in State care?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No. The paramount requirement will be the safety of the child. However, in order to ensure a loving and stable home, then connections that arise from a cultural context will indeed be important.

Jan Logie: Is the Minister concerned that she does not seem to have a mandate from Māori to push these reforms through, seeing as the Government has failed to consult with key stakeholders such as the Māori Women’s Welfare League, and only belatedly appointed one Māori member to the so-called expert advisory panel?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Of course the Minister will be concerned to ensure that consultation, as appropriate, has informed the development of the policy. I am aware, on behalf of the Minister, that I have consulted with a range of stakeholders. But I would commend the democratic institution of this very place to the member, where Parliament will have the opportunity to interrogate in detail the specific provisions that are the concern of the member, as set out in the primary question.

Jan Logie: Does she accept that, as she has not undertaken robust consultation of Māori on her reforms, which would see more tamariki Māori removed from their whānau, she should ensure there is enough time for the matter to be referred to the Waitangi Tribunal for proper scrutiny before the bill is introduced?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I accept none of the assertions that the member has made. I would repeat two elements of previous answers: (1) the Māori Party has been a very powerful advocate on behalf of the very tikanga that the member is identifying; and (2) there will be significant consultation opportunities as part of the select committee process.

Health Services—Elective Surgery

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What was the total percentage growth in hip and knee joint elective discharges between 2002/03 and 2008/09, and what was the same figure for 2009/10 to 2015/16?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Ninety-one and 24, but, remember, Labour was not in Government for nearly all of 2008-09 when National came in and set a new target for lifting surgeries. The figures that are really relevant are that although Labour did an extra 10,000 electives per year over its time, this Government is doing an extra 53,000 operations per year. That is over five times the annual increase achieved by the previous Labour Government.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, why is he trying to hide the fact that there was a 91 percent increase in hip and knee joint surgery undertaken between 2002 and 2008—and that was a Labour Budget, not a National Budget—and only a 24 percent increase in the 7 years between 2009 and 2016, under this Government, even though the population increased and aged?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not trying to hide it at all, but I think it is interesting that Mrs King has chosen one of two areas where she managed to deliver any sort of an increase. So listen to this: general surgery under Mrs King, down; heart surgery under Mrs King, down; ear, nose, and throat surgery under Mrs King, down; gynaecological operations under Mrs King, down; and paediatric surgery, plastics and burns, urology, and vascular surgery under Mrs King—all fewer operations.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was quoting from an official document. Would he like to table it, please?

Mr SPEAKER: That is easily resolved. Was the Minister quoting from an official document; if so, could he table it?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I will not be tabling that, sorry. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, actually, I am happy to table it.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Annette King: When he claims more elective surgery than ever, why does he not tell the people waiting for hip and knee operations in the Hutt Valley, MidCentral, Northland, South Canterbury, Tai Rāwhiti, Waikato, and Wanganui district health boards that they did fewer operations in 2015-16 than in 2014-15?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Quite frankly, overall there has been a 30 percent lift in hip and knee operations under this Government. That is the fact of it. But I would also tell them that when Mrs King left office, there were 33,000 people waiting over 6 months for appointments or treatment. Today there is pretty much zero waiting over 6 months.

Simon O’Connor: Can the Minister confirm, further to the primary question’s reference to a previous administration, that the number of elective surgeries was actually cut from 107,880 in 2000-01 to 105,600 in 2005-06, a cut of 2,218—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, this is a question that I think is designed to do nothing else but to attack an Opposition party.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order, which I will address first.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The primary question posed by Mrs King refers to her time as the Minister of Health. It refers to the period when Labour was in Government, so I think that opens it up for questions on that period. That is just logical.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister may well think that, but we are still not going to have questions that are designed to do nothing else but attack an Opposition party.

Hon Annette King: Is Professor David Gwynne-Jones correct in his research published in April 2016, which shows that people receiving hip and knee surgery under this Government are more severely disabled than they were previously?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to go and read that research, because I would not be surprised if Mrs King is selectively lifting conclusions from it.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the article, which is in the New Zealand Medical Journal from April this year, and in which that is exactly what he said.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that the medical journal is not often available to members, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular article. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does he think that at some point in the future there may be a realistic challenge to his excellent management of the health portfolio by a futuristic look at the health sector from the Labour Party?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not know, but what I can say is that the historical look does not look very good at all. When you look at the Dominion Post from September 2005, it said that it was just unbelievable that you could put so much extra money into the health system but make it worse.

Simon O’Connor: What reports has he seen around the number of elective surgeries between 2001 and 2006?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have seen a range of reports, but the key figure is that the Minister in charge at that time managed to deliver, unbelievably, 2,000 fewer operations and 7,000 fewer appointments, despite having an extra $3 billion in the Budget. Quite frankly, I do not know how you could possibly do that, but someone managed it.

Hon Annette King: Why—[Interruption] Who said that?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need assistance from the Government whip.

Hon Annette King: Why has there been a big increase in acute hip and knee operations—in other words, people needing urgent treatment that cannot wait—which has almost doubled under this Government, and are doctors correct when they called him “Dr Who” in a doctor’s magazine?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Acute surgery actually shows that people are getting their operations sooner. Basically, they get the injury and then they have the operation. It is a far cry from when Mrs King was the Minister, when 33,000 people were waiting for more than 6 months, and then, of course, Pete Hodgson had to just cull them off the list altogether. Today there are zero waiting more than 6 months because they are actually getting their operations, unlike when that person was the Minister.

Hon Annette King: I thought we were forward-looking.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Yes. What action is he taking on hearing comments from Waikato District Health Board that “staff across the organisation were under pressure to deliver targets and yet the district health board’s own reports showed it was financially under-resourced.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, the first report we got on that was an anonymous phone call to my office. So the immediate action we took was to google the number, which turned out be the Wellington office of the Labour Party.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is against the Standing Orders for any member to stand in this House and say that sort of thing without proving it. I want—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] No. Order! The member asked a question about what action the Minister took. The Minister—[Interruption] Order! The Minister gave an answer to the action he took. If in any way the member now feels she has been misrepresented, then the place for that is to refer to Standing Order 359.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the point of order, but if it is in regards to the matter I have just—

Hon Annette King: No, what I wanted to say was that in your summary of the member’s answer you said “the action he took”. What he said was—it was not the action. He said he received anonymous information that came from the Labour Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member is now trifling with the Chair. I have dealt with the point of order. The member may well debate the answer that was given, and if she feels strongly enough about an issue of potential misrepresentation, I have given her guidance on what to do. But it is not about continuing points of order in this House on that matter. Question No. 3—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member wishes to proceed for a further conversation in the lobbies with the Minister she is more than welcome. In the meantime I am calling Todd Muller, question No. 3.

Financial Services—Stability

3. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing New Zealand’s economy is strong and its financial system is sound and operating effectively?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yesterday the Reserve Bank released its November Financial Stability Report. The Reserve Bank says the economy is strong in comparison with other advanced economies and New Zealand’s external liabilities are well below pre - global financial crisis levels. It says the financial system is sound, with the banking system holding capital and liquidity buffers above regulatory requirements.

Todd Muller: What are some of the main financial system risks that the Reserve Bank points to in its report?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We need to keep in mind the context in which the Reserve Bank is pointing out these risks. It has fundamental responsibility for the financial stability in the economy and tends to point out anything that looks like it could be a risk, so these should not be interpreted as significant risks right now to the financial system. It highlights risks it has talked about previously: the housing market, bank funding pressures, and dairy sector indebtedness—for instance, in the case of the dairy sector, rising prices are taking some pressure off the small number of heavily indebted dairy farmers. The bank says that measures that it has taken in the housing market have had some effect, but it stresses that addressing the underlying housing supply imbalances will be necessary to contain price growth.

Todd Muller: What steps can he report are being taken to improve financial sector resilience?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some improvements can be made at the margins, but the New Zealand financial sector, particularly given the global financial crisis, is already substantially resilient. Since then there has been a significant uplift in the prudential requirements on banks, for instance, and the savings rates of New Zealanders have also increased since then. A number of steps, though, have been taken to improve resilience: the loan-to-value ratio rules were recently tightened by the Reserve Bank, the capital requirements for housing investors requiring 40 percent deposit, and the bank is now reviewing the capital buffer requirements on banks.

James Shaw: How does the Minister account for the discrepancy between his own and Treasury’s highly optimistic assessment of the economy against the Reserve Bank’s assessment, which talks about considerable continued build-up of risk, in particular in the dairy and housing markets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think there is a fundamental difference in the views of agencies or the Government or even the general public, actually, about where the economy is heading. It is on a positive track. It is one of the faster-growing economies in the developed world, delivering more jobs and moderate but consistent increases in incomes. The Reserve Bank has a particular role, which is to look at anything that could turn into a risk to the financial system. It goes into that in great detail in its financial stability report, but it does not contradict the outlook for the economy.

Todd Muller: How does New Zealand’s banking system compare with those in other advanced economies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a number of ways in which the banking system is performing well. The cost of bank services is below the OECD average. New Zealand has the lowest share of non-performing loans in the OECD at 0.4 percent—so only 0.4 percent of loans are in a state where the borrower is not meeting their obligations. Across most developed countries in the OECD the median is around 4 percent. The Reserve Bank also ranks New Zealand’s banks as highly cost-effective with the lowest expenses as a proportion of income in the OECD.

Reserve Bank—Debt-to-income Ratio Restrictions

4. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Finance: Does he support the Reserve Bank introducing debt-to-income ratio restrictions for mortgage lending; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government is presently considering a request from the Reserve Bank to add a debt-to-income tool to the bank’s macro-prudential toolbox. No decision has been made yet, but I would point out to the member that in the last few days the Reserve Bank Governor has said that if the tool was available at the moment, he would not be implementing it at the moment.

Phil Twyford: How has he allowed the housing market to deteriorate to the point where a third of new mortgages are now over six times the family income?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The level of those mortgages is a decision made between the borrower and the bank. They decide between them how much risk they are willing to take, and one of the things that will be driving the borrowers’ considerations is that interest rates are half what they were when Labour left office. That is one of the reasons why there is strong demand for housing. Another reason is that those households have confidence in the economy, they can see that their jobs could yield pay rises consistently over time, and they back themselves to be able to meet the mortgage commitments. I do not think the Government is in a better position to make that decision.

Phil Twyford: Is he concerned that with the average mortgage for a first-home buyer now at $390,000, a 1 percent rise in interest rates would add four grand a year to interest payments, crippling many hard-working families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member refers to these hard-working families as if they somehow lack the capacity to understand what they are doing, and I disagree with him. I have spoken to many hard-working families who understand that interest rates could go up. Their banks actually run their tests on the mortgage as if interest rates are 6 or 7 percent—that is, 1.5 percent higher than they currently are. So we believe these are mature, sensible people—hard-working people—who are making reasonable decisions about what risks they are willing to take. That is against a background of pretty consistent warnings from the Reserve Bank that they should not overstretch themselves, and it appears that banks in particular are listening to that.

Phil Twyford: Is he embarrassed that despite repeatedly telling the House that loan-to-value ratios (LVRs) were the decision of the independent Reserve Bank, the bank has now so publicly asked his permission to add a debt-to-income ratio to the tool kit, preventing a repeat of that deception?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No—not embarrassed at all.

Phil Twyford: When will he accept that telling first-home buyers to be careful and tools like LVRs and debt-to-income ratios that hammer home buyers do not amount to a housing policy, and that the only serious solutions are to build more affordable homes, genuinely reform the planning system, and crack down on speculators?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that, as the member knows—it has been discussed extensively in the House—increasing the supply of housing is the key to having a less exaggerated house price cycle. The biggest step forward in that has been the passage of the Auckland Unitary Plan, because the Government cannot go and build thousands of houses if the council plan does not allow it to occur. This new Auckland Unitary Plan does, and I want to acknowledge the member’s efforts in helping the council get across the line on what is a radically different plan. Now he can look forward to increases in the supply of housing.

Police Resourcing—Burglaries and Workload

5. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Given reports that on 9 August she admitted that there are not enough Police and that she was in talks with the Prime Minister over the matter, can she advise whether the talks have ended or are still ongoing?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Actually, what I said, and I have said quite consistently, is that police will need more resources going into the future. This is absolutely the case, and, as I have also said, I have been working on this for quite some time now. This is not back-of-the-envelope, numbers-plucked-out-of-thin-air stuff. Our police actually deserve proper consideration and discussion, and that is exactly what I am doing.

Ron Mark: Can she explain how our under-staffed police force will be expected to attend every burglary while trying, at the same time, to combat organised crime, or does her Government consider combatting organised crime to be a low priority now?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have full confidence in the Commissioner of Police when he advised me that police can, in fact, attend every burglary, whether it is a police officer, whether it is an authorised officer, or whether it is a forensic services person. I have full confidence in police when they say that they do have those resources at the moment, but they accept, as well, that they are going to need more resources into the future.

Ron Mark: What good news does she have for the communities of Palmerston North, Christchurch, Northland, and many other towns and regions across the country that are reporting increased levels of crime and a reduction in police officers and resources, and for those police officers who will be on duty over the Christmas and New Year period?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Just dealing first with Northland, because that is one of the, I think, four questions there. Let us have a look at Northland. Well, I have been advised that in August 12 Criminal Investigation Branch investigators from Auckland were sent to assist Northland district for 3 weeks, with six going to Kaitāia and the other half to Kaikohe. Additionally, six extra investigators are being allocated to the district for the next 12 months, which that member, I hope, will appreciate. Four of these began work on 10 October; two positions are still to be filled. They will be based in Kaikohe, but will move around the district as needed. The team sent in August has helped to clear a backlog of serious crime files and provide support to local staff, as has happened with regard to Northland at different times and periods over the last 10 months. In addition, six public safety team officers from across Auckland were also sent to assist front-line staff in Kaitāia and Kaikohe.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that there will not be any announcements from police commanders in the regions, specifically the Manawatū, Horowhenua, Wairarapa, that there are going to be police cuts and the removal of officers who are sole officers in the district they are currently in—an absolute categorical assurance?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Quite clearly, as a Minister, it is not my prerogative to advise where police should be placed, because if I were to, they would all be in my electorate, obviously.

Stuart Nash: Because they’re needed.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, yes, that is right! And it is very important, though, to allow the police to undertake the allocation of the resources that they have. But I would say to that member that, thankfully, there are 600 more police now than there ever were under a previous Government.

Water Quality of Rivers and Lakes—Lucas Creek

6. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement that Ōkahukura/Lucas Creek is a stream that “nobody has ever wanted or tried to swim in”?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: Dr Smith, I understand, made this remark in the context that Lucas Creek is a small urban creek in Auckland, that Auckland City has a huge challenge to improve its urban waterways, and that the council and the community are already engaged in cleaning up this creek. But very little of its length is enough to swim in or to be accessible for swimming.

Catherine Delahunty: How does he explain this extraordinary, negative statement to mana whenua, the Friends of Lucas Creek, Sustainable Pāremoremo, and the Wai Care group, supported by Auckland Council and the Upper Harbour community board, which has been putting in hours of work to make the creek safe for swimming again?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: We certainly appreciate the work that the community and the iwi have been doing in cleaning up this river, but I restate and say that very little of this river is deep enough, wide enough, or accessible for swimming.

Catherine Delahunty: When the Green MPs kayaked four abreast last week on the Lucas Creek, and had miles of water around them, why was it not possible for us to swim?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I suspect that Green MPs were kayaking in the estuary, at the bottom of the creek.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that even this river, which he wrote off as one that no one was wanting to swim in, which I paddled up to Kells waterfall in, has been restored by a huge community effort—to be swimmable—why will he not help and amend the national policy statement (NPS) for fresh water to make it a bottom line that rivers are safe for swimming?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Wadable and boatable is a bottom line for the fresh water NPS. It is a bottom line, and most New Zealand communities want to make more of their rivers and lakes swimmable, and we support that aspiration. We are looking to amend the fresh water NPS, on further consultation.

Disaster Preparedness—Earthquakes

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Civil Defence: How has the 14 November Kaikōura earthquake affected the probability of future earthquakes in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): GNS Science issued an update about recent observations that were published about a week ago. It has observed an unusual activity involving slow slips, essentially the ongoing interactions observed between tectonic plates at the same time on both the east and the west parts of the lower North Island. The heightened activity increases the uncertainty about the likelihood and size of future earthquakes. Since the 7.5 magnitude Kaikōura earthquake, GNS Science has advised the public that an aftershock of similar or larger magnitude is unlikely but possible. As members of the House will understand, it is not scientifically possible to predict earthquakes. However, this ongoing seismic activity is a reminder to us all that we live in a seismically active country, and we should always be prepared for a major earthquake. [Interruption]

Chris Bishop: This is a cracker—what steps can New Zealanders take to be better prepared for a disaster?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is a good question, and it is not a laughing matter in these circumstances. The Kaikōura earthquakes have prompted important conversations about being well prepared for earthquakes and tsunami. I encourage New Zealanders to go to the happens.nz website to get information on how to get ready and get through potential disaster. You can always make a plan online in just a few minutes if you wish. It is also important for people to quake safe their homes by doing the things that they have always been told to do: secure tall furniture to walls, restrain your television and hot-water cylinders, and I would encourage people to visit eqc.govt.nz for tips on how to make homes safer in the event of an earthquake. It is one of those things that too many of us take for granted. We live in a country where these things happen. We should make necessary preparations where possible.

Marama Fox: It is my understanding that Ministerial Services staff and Ministers have been supplied with a grab and go bag here in Parliament, in the event of a major earthquake; can the Minister let us know whether or not other MPs and Parliamentary Service staff will be supplied with the same kit?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My understanding is that that is something that Ministerial Services may have done under its health and safety obligations. I am sure that the Speaker, who has similar obligations on behalf of members of Parliament, will have heard the question and will have his people make appropriate considerations.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

Early Childhood Education—Funding

8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that early childhood education services are getting all the funding they need to deliver quality education and care for children?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): We would all always want more funding, and, of course, there has been more—100 percent more for early childhood education (ECE). Our children’s educational outcomes improve significantly when they are able to benefit from quality early learning. That is why this Government is committed to ensuring as many of our earliest learners as possible are participating in quality ECE options. This has seen the numbers of children attending ECE climbing consistently since 2008—it is now at 96.7 percent—and by making sure we have the funding to match. This Government, as I have already said, has almost doubled ECE funding since 2008, to a record $1.8 billion. We also want childcare to be accessible, and since 2008 access to ECE has become 33.5 percent more affordable.

Chris Hipkins: Why does she continue to spread the misrepresentation that early childhood education funding is increasing, when on a per child per year basis the Ministry of Education’s own documents suggest that the funding has fallen by over $500 per year per child from over $10,000 to less than $9,500 per child per year?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is not a misrepresentation, to the member. The facts are very clear that the Government has doubled the amount that was available in 2008—from I think about $780 million to $1.79 billion now. I do not think it takes much—

Chris Hipkins: There’s more kids.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: There are, but there are not more kids in the way that the member is—and, actually, we want there to be more kids. That is why we have a Better Public Services target; that is why we are at 96.7 percent.

Chris Hipkins: Does she believe that cutting more than $500 per child per year from early childhood education services funding makes it easier or harder for parents to meet the cost of their kids’ early childhood education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Government has not done that.

Chris Hipkins: Why has her Government cut more than $528 million from early childhood education during its tenure in office by removing the top funding band for services that offer the highest quality early childhood education by employing the most qualified staff?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have the number readily to hand, regrettably, but under this Government the number of qualified teachers in early childhood education has risen significantly more than it did under that Government, with a policy that it was never going to meet.

Chris Hipkins: What have been the educational benefits of removing the funding band for early childhood services that employ 100 percent qualified teachers?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: This Government has doubled funding for early childhood education. It has committed to ensuring that as many young people participate in education as possible. It has provided support to failing early childhood centres. It has ensured that more Māori and Pasifika, those least likely to attend, are now attending. We are currently in a consultation about the refresh of Te Whāriki, the curriculum that underpins early childhood education, to ensure that the quality outcomes that all of us see—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I allowed the Minister’s answer to go on for a long time—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the point of order, please.

Chris Hipkins: —because I was hoping that she would address the question that I asked, but she has not in any way come even close to the question that I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: I was listening very carefully as well. I think on this occasion she has, when I consider the question essentially was “What is the education advantage?”. A wide question like that gives the Minister a fairly wide ambit in answering it; the Minister took that opportunity.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on that matter. If the member has a fresh point of order, I am happy to hear it, but I am not happy—

Chris Hipkins: You might not have heard the last part of the question, which was about the educational benefits of cutting a particular strand of funding.

Mr SPEAKER: I took that into account when I gave my consideration.

Chris Hipkins: Which of the following best reflects her Government’s achievements in early childhood education: the fact that the cost to parents for their children’s early childhood education has been rising at up to 7 times the rate of inflation; the fact that there have been increasing complaints from staff working in early childhood education that they feel like they are “factory farming … children”; or her failure to reach her own Government’s participation targets?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: None of those; they reflect the negative attitude of the Opposition. As far as our Government goes, childcare is increasingly affordable in New Zealand. In the year to March 2016 the cost of childcare relative to earnings decreased by 2.2 percent. In April 2016 the childcare subsidy was increased from $4 to $5 an hour. Around 41,000 families and 49,000 children will benefit from this change each year. The affordability of ECE as at March 2016 has become 1.9 percent more affordable than in March 2011, when considering CPI and average annual earning increases. I could go on, but, basically, the member should improve his numeracy. How can there possibly be a cut when the dollars have doubled?

Regional Economic Development—Southland Regional Development Strategy Action Plan

9. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government supporting economic development in Southland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Yesterday primary industries Minister, Nathan Guy, and I attended a meeting of more than 500 people in Invercargill for the launch of the Southland Regional Development Strategy Action Plan. The plan was developed locally in Southland. It is supported by the Government through our regional growth programme, which aims to increase jobs, incomes, and investment across regional New Zealand. It lays out a clear plan to diversify the Southland economy, grow the population by 10,000 people over the next 10 years, and strengthen local businesses. To help achieve these goals, the region has identified opportunities to grow sectors like tourism and international education, to develop the aquaculture sector, and further improve the productivity of the sheep, beef, and dairy industries.

Sarah Dowie: What initiatives are contained in the plan to grow the primary sector?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Agriculture is, of course, a crucial part of the Southland economy—it is the largest contributor to the region’s GDP—but there are opportunities to grow it further by diversifying land use and finding innovative and sustainable ways to grow productivity. We are supporting that work by investing $220,000 to develop the skills and capabilities of farmers, and promote the uptake of improved farming practices, and $300,000 towards the development and the delivery of the People, Water and Land Strategy, which is about maintaining freshwater quality. AgResearch is investing $5 million in the Southern Dairy Hub, a new research and demonstration farm that will ensure the local dairy sector can continually benefit from access to the latest science. And we are investing just under a million dollars to investigate the potential for substantially growing the aquaculture industry in Southland, to further diversify the local economy.

Sarah Dowie: What other initiatives are in the plan, and what support is the Government providing?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Along with the release of the plan, associate tourism Minister, Paula Bennett, and I announced a $510,000 package to help strengthen the region’s tourism industry and attract more visitors to more of the attractions in the region. Although Southland visitor spending is up 3.3 percent in the year to September, that is a lower rate of growth than in other parts of New Zealand. There is huge potential to grow this further. We are also investing $440,000 to promote international education and skill development in the primary sector, and that will assist with the region’s goal not only to bring in an additional 3,500 international students but to increase the number of students and their families who settle and remain in Southland as the region grows.

Police Resourcing—Burglaries, Numbers, and Crime Rate

10. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree with the front-line police officer who recently said, regarding Police resources to attend every dwelling burglary, “we’re only chasing our tails … The only solution is more staff. With successive frozen budgets, we’re at rock bottom”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I certainly agree with the officer’s views on the impact that burglary has on victims, and for those reasons I support the Police’s increased focus on burglary. I also agree that Police will need more resources going into the future. However, the officer was incorrect to say that the Police budget has been frozen. Police has received considerable extra funding under this Government, with an annual budget of $1.6 billion—up from $1.2 billion when National took office. This year’s Budget further demonstrated the Government’s commitment to preventing and reducing crime, with Police receiving an extra $299.2 million—hardly a frozen budget.

Stuart Nash: When she said, in response to question No. 5, that if she had her way, all of the police would be moved to her electorate, is that because in her police district over the last 12 months, crime increased by 7 percent, or over 50 crimes per week?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, really, I think that the member needs to listen a little bit more closely. I did, however, point out that there is a reason that a Minister does not get to decide where the police are all based, because, otherwise, they might all be in that Minister’s electorate, and not in, for instance, that member’s electorate.

Hon Steven Joyce: Although, if you came over to our side, Stuart—

Stuart Nash: Well, I would make a better Minister of Police than she would. Anyway—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member was responding to an interjection. He will now proceed to the supplementary question.

Stuart Nash: How does she explain to the people of New Zealand an increase of over 13,000 crimes over the last 12 months—that is, 250 extra crimes per week compared with the previous 12 months—and yet she has still done nothing to increase police numbers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course, if I wanted to explain those numbers—the 70 percent of them is an increase in burglaries, and that is why police are focused on burglaries.

Stuart Nash: In light of that, has she received any reports of police from organised crime units being moved, either temporarily or permanently, to solve burglaries; if so, what is the nature of these reports?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I understand that there is an anonymous letter to a trade union organisation paper saying that, but I have not got any evidence of it other than that.

Stuart Nash: Given that she said yesterday that “that member knows that the Prime Minister and I have made numerous statements to him, and others, around the resourcing of police”, can she advise how many more unnecessary victimisations have to take place before the Minister finally stops talking and starts acting?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Leaving aside the very unfair nature of that question, I can say that this Minister is acting all the time when it comes to numbers, because we are working on this and have been for some time. If only he would do the groundwork like New Zealand First does, and make the odd Official Information Act request, he might find out.

Broadband, Ultra-fast—Progress

11. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made on the Ultrafast Broadband programme?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Communications: Last week the Minister released the latest quarterly broadband update, which highlights that nearly 50,000 new connections were made to ultra-fast broadband (UFB) in the 3 months to September. This means the number of premises connected to UFB has now surpassed 300,000 homes and businesses nationwide. Uptake has increased to 28.3 percent, so we are now well on our way to having the 36 percent uptake we expected to have for 2019 when the build is finished. People are connecting to fibre more quickly and seeing the benefits of this world-leading connectivity project.

Brett Hudson: How is the UFB programme tracking against initial expectations?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The overall deployment of UFB is now 5 percent ahead of schedule, at over 69 percent complete around the country, with 13,342 new end-users added to the market this quarter. Uptake is also tracking above expectations, and we are seeing fibre transform communities and businesses right around New Zealand.

Schools, Special—Seclusion Rooms and Salisbury School Closure

12. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied with the level of support and choice provided by her ministry for students with the highest level of special needs to attain their personal best?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I am never satisfied that we cannot always improve. That is why, last week, I announced that a single point of access will be piloted in the Waiariki Bay of Plenty to schools and families that need to access learning support for their children. This pilot is part of the learning support update that I commissioned to ensure that we have world-class inclusive education that puts progress and success for all children and young people at the heart of teaching and learning. The update work, which is not yet complete, is focused on ensuring that our learning support system is child-centred, simple to access, and available promptly, early, and without interruption, for as long as it is required.

Tracey Martin: Can she confirm that Halswell Residential College is one of the eight that her ministry has been working with over seclusion rooms?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.

Tracey Martin: Is the Minister aware that Salisbury School—a school she is considering closing—eliminated seclusion, restraint, isolation, and time out in 2011, and is now a model of best practice?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am well aware that Salisbury School has done that, and I am also well aware that the ratio of staff to students is significantly higher than it is anywhere else in the country.

Tracey Martin: When will the Minister announce her decision on Salisbury School’s future, given that originally she said it would be released in October 2016, or is she waiting until after the House has risen so she can avoid answering questions about how she has left the staff, parents, and students in limbo, awaiting her pleasure?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: There is nothing pleasurable about this. No, I do not intend to outwait the House. I am very happy to be accountable. The staff have not been left in limbo. The ministry has consistently updated them with where we are, including answering further questions that Salisbury School has put to us.

Chris Hipkins: Why did this year’s Budget allocate $6 million less to the ongoing resourcing scheme, which supports the most high-needs special-needs students in our schools, than her own Budget bid indicated was required just to maintain the status quo?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Budget provided $16.5 million to enable more students to access the ongoing resourcing scheme.

Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table the Minister’s Budget bid, which indicates $22 million was required.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Bills

Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill

Procedure

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill to be now read a first time and referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration, for the bill to be reported to the House by 6 December 2016, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I seek this leave, as opposed to moving a motion, because the bill is well-known to the House and it will be considered at a select committee for a short time.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

First Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill be now read a first time. As I said in the lead motion, we nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill and for the bill to be reported to the House by 6 December 2016. That committee will have authority to meet broadly during the short period that it has to consider the bill.

The earthquakes of 14 November have left a very indelible mark on communities throughout the upper part of the South Island and in parts of Wellington. It is impossible to fully understand what might be needed to recover from those events. This week, with unanimous support across the House, we have passed legislation that will significantly help in that earthquake recovery. But that alone is not enough. We know that with such a big earthquake and the subsequent aftershocks, the widespread destruction that comes with that will mean that it could be a considerable time before all of the damage is understood and, more importantly, the consequences of that damage are understood in relation to communities recovering.

Like the Canterbury earthquakes, the true scale of it will take some time to determine. As I said in the House earlier this week, I acknowledge the many Civil Defence personnel, engineers, and Defence personnel who worked hard to assist those affected. I would also like to compliment those people who work for the many contractors who are now engaged in keeping roads open, and, particularly, their families, who will be experiencing their long working hours by their absence.

In order to keep that effort going, there may well be a need from time to time to suspend, amend, or change some laws that relate to that recovery. This bill sets out a proposal that would allow a specified list of legislation to be amended by Order in Council for the earthquake-affected areas, where necessary or desirable for recovery. It is a flexible mechanism that allows us to react quickly to a range of issues. The issues that may need to be dealt with are not yet fully understood, and I state that for the record, for the third time, to make it very clear that in passing this bill the Parliament will be enabling those works to get done in a speedy fashion. We are coming into the Christmas and new year period, and it is possible that there could be an aftershock that might have an effect on one of those roads, even if there has been good progress made on them. It is important that momentum is not lost.

I recognise that these are extraordinary powers, and I appreciate that there will be concerns about using Order in Council mechanisms, as was the case in the Canterbury legislation. Appropriate constraints are, therefore, quite important. For that reason there are a number of limits and controls on the exercise of the Order in Council power in the bill. The order must be necessary or desirable for the purpose—or response or recovery from the earthquakes—and must be no broader than necessary.

The bill applies only to those areas directly or indirectly affected by the earthquakes. This includes alternative roading outside the main affected regions—for instance Nelson and the West Coast, which now hosts the main road from Blenheim to Christchurch and routes south. Some of those roads have experienced no more than 100 traffic movements a day but are now experiencing up to 700 truck and trailer units per day. It is quite a different prospect, and it does raise issues of safety that will have to be addressed, but it will have to be done so responsibly and without any opportunistic behaviour.

The provisions of this bill are time-bound. The ability to make orders and any orders made under this bill’s powers would both expire in mid-2018. In other words, it is not an opening up of law on a permanent basis; once again, it is restricted to the activities needed for immediate recovery.

An independent review panel will advise on draft orders, and the relevant Minister must have regard to their recommendations. The panel will comprise iwi and local government representation, as well as legal expertise. There are also certain fundamental rights and obligations that cannot be subject to the bill’s Order in Council process—for example, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Electoral Act cannot be amended. Draft orders will be provided for the Regulations Review Committee and to leaders of political parties during the recess for comment, and the relevant Minister must have regard to any comments received.

The order, once made, will be subject to the House’s normal disallowance provisions. Orders can be made only in respect of the specified listed Acts that we think may need to be amended to assist recovery. That list of Acts is something a select committee will, I am sure, want to closely scrutinise. It is obviously no small thing to change primary legislation without primary scrutiny. A Regulations Review Committee process is to provide some of that scrutiny, without unduly delaying the changes that are necessary to assist in the recovery.

The Order in Council process was successful in assisting recovery in greater Christchurch. It is designed to be flexible to deal with a range of potential matters, including temporary housing, accommodation supplements, streamlined planning and consenting processes, geotechnical assessment, and tax and financial reporting deadlines. No one should read into the list I have just given that it is an exhaustive list. There will be things that come up from time to time that this legislation will facilitate being dealt with.

It is not a central government takeover, either. I expect Ministers to engage with local councils and iwi in developing proposed orders. The requirement of the bill in relation to the review panel also formalises local and iwi input.

The bill facilitates recovery without needing to anticipate every power or statutory provision. It may need to be amended to assist with recovery. It is worth noting that if this bill passes, it is the will of the House that this mechanism is available to achieve those things, and no one should read into the intention of the House anything less than that.

I think there are robust limits in this bill and appropriate controls, because it is necessary and expected by people who put a sovereign Government into place that it will do something. And this, over the last week, has been an exercise on behalf of the House that the Parliament of New Zealand wants to do something to help people in Kaikōura.

I look forward to the comments in this debate. I look forward to the discussion that will go on in the very short select committee process. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise with pleasure on behalf of the Labour Party to say that we are supporting this piece of legislation. Can I reiterate the comments that Mr Brownlee has made, thanking those people throughout the area, and, actually, further afield, who are doing their utmost to help the people affected by the earthquake. A lot of people are, obviously, helping themselves, but others are also pulling out all stops to assist the people who have been adversely affected by the earthquake to try to minimise ongoing safety risks, and also to try to assist the putting back together of the infrastructure—the homes and the other repairs that are needed to allow life to return to normal.

This is an important bill. I want to give an illustration of what I think is going to be one of the most practical issues that is faced under the legislation. We have all seen the photographs of the enormous quantity of debris that is covering the roads and the railway, blocking State Highway 1. As Minister Brownlee has said, it has had the consequence of diverting traffic to much longer routes, much less convenient routes, much more costly routes, and routes that were not designed to have that much traffic. The Government, I think, has already indicated that it is likely to restore State Highway 1 from Kaikōura through to Picton. It is expecting to have the section south of Kaikōura opened in the not too distant future, but the huge job of getting it open between Kaikōura and Picton is one that is going to have enormous complications.

One of the complications is that there are so many slips that it seems to me that it is going to be likely that the repair work has to be done at the same time for different slips. So they will be working in the middle of this as well as at the ends, when they will not have access restored for very long sections of road. So what do they do with the spoil?

Already in the debate on the bill yesterday we heard that there were representatives from the inshore fishery and from the pāua industry saying that we have got to be very careful that we do not drop a lot more fine sediments into the sea area because we could be further damaging unnecessarily the pāua fishery or the lobster fishery or the environment, more generally. But, on the other hand, where do you put it? I would have thought that it is very difficult to barge it all away. Maybe that is a possibility, but I would have thought that that is pretty impossible. So the question as to what is going to be done there is going to have to be grappled with by the Government, and it seems likely—it seems almost certain—that it is going to have to override certain normal provisions that would apply in respect of those decisions.

That is not to say that it should not have regard to the environmental consequences and do it in the best way that is possible, but it is going to need special powers, and it is not yet clear that the special powers that will be needed moving forward are available under the existing legislation. That is one of the reasons why Parliament is deciding whether it should confer additional powers to the executive under this bill to override primary legislation. I think that is an appropriate thing to do.

Having said that, we should always be very careful when we are overriding the things that are meant to be controlled by primary legislation. The Regulations Review Committee report on this, I think, makes the best example in our history—or the worst example, actually—and that is that the Economic Stabilisation Act was passed in 1948 with a broad regulation-making power that was intended to be short-lived. Effectively, it was so broad that it allowed another Government 30 years later—the Government of the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon—to, by statutory regulation, impose a price freeze and a rent freeze and a wage freeze upon the whole of the country through a regulation. It patently should have been done, if at all—it was a silly thing to do, but if it was to be done, it ought to have been done through parliamentary legislation. That is an example of why you have actually got to be very careful that you do not confer powers on the executive that will be used in ways that were not expected when they were first created.

My view of this is it is a bit like taxation. When it comes to overriding Government legislation in an emergency situation it is a bit like taxation—as little as possible and as much as necessary. We have got to give the powers to the executive to override primary legislation in way that is as little as possible but is as much as is necessary. Getting that balance right is what we are trying to achieve through this legislation.

We are lucky—or unlucky—to have had two recent instances when Parliament has previously attempted to do this, which was in 2010 and 2011, in response to the earthquakes that, tragically, saw a much greater loss of life in the Canterbury region. On both of those occasions there were criticisms of the legislation, although on both of those occasions, I think we all acknowledge in this House, the excessive powers that were conferred upon the executive were not abused. They were not abused, but the possibility of their abuse existed from the breadth of the legislation, and there was quite a bit of criticism, particularly of the 2010 legislation. The 2011 legislation was an improvement on the 2010 legislation. It included some checks and balances, including a review committee whose views had to be taken into account. That mechanism is being carried forward in this legislation, and that is a very good thing.

I personally think that these are such serious things that you should always have a judge on the review committee. I do not think it should just be some minor lawyer. There are lots of minor lawyers who would not be good at it. We had at the select committee on the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill today Sir Bruce Robertson in front of us, who is the inspector of warrants there, and you just see how experienced judges from our senior courts are so much cleverer than a junior lawyer who could otherwise be appointed to these roles. [Interruption] What was that?

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Nothing.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha, ha! No, I do not think you want that on record. Ha, ha! Excuse me while I regather my thoughts.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know a junior lawyer who’s becoming available.

Hon DAVID PARKER: So the role of judges—yes, we have plenty of retired judges who can do this sort of thing, if it is not suitable for a current judge. So I would hope that the select committee looks at whether we should require that one of the review committee members be a judge. I do not have a view as to how big the committee should be. I do not think it should be too big. I think the people who should sit on it—I think three is the suggestion, and that is good. The pool of people from which they are drawn can be bigger. I do not have a strong view as to that, although maybe it needs to be a bit bigger than if it was just a small geographical area that was being considered, if there is a case for some geographical representation.

As little as possible and as much as necessary—well, the way the second Act in 2010 tried to put in some controls was that it had a list of assets that could not be overridden, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, for example, but beyond that list, anything could be. Again, that was too broad. The Regulations Review Committee has recommended that we actually have a positive list in the legislation as to what can be overridden, rather than leaving it to open slather, again with some things that cannot be overridden even through that process. Is the list too long? Or is it too short? That is to be considered by the select committee.

I just want to say, in the short time I have available, that I am not sure that we should allow that list to be lengthened through a regulation-making process rather than bringing it back to Parliament. Once it is done it is very hard for the Government of the day to actually concede: “Oh, well, maybe we got that wrong.” It is much better, I think, that you have parliamentary scrutiny if you are going to add to that list, which is already a very long list, and if there is a need to change it, well, the Government, under urgency, could just add something to the list with one debate, essentially, as we have done with other legislation here in respect of an addition such as that. With regard to the submission period, I am a little disappointed that we have got to report back by Wednesday—by Wednesday, is it?

Jami-Lee Ross: Tuesday.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Tuesday. I do not know why that could not be next Thursday. We could have still passed the legislation through later. It is one of the points that the Regulations Review Committee made. I know how difficult it was for a less important bill that we considered yesterday. We have been working very long hours to try to knock that one into shape, and it was a good bill when it came to us. I would have thought we could allow ourselves a few more days to do that and, therefore, allow people who were interested in these issues to make submissions. I think by the time they read the Regulations Review Committee report and they reflect on how good this legislation is and how it is a further improvement, with more checks and balances compared with the prior pieces of legislation, a lot of them—if they actually have the time—will say “Well done.”, but we are hardly giving them the time to say that. So, with that, can I agree that this legislation is necessary, and I look forward to the scrutiny of this legislation at the select committee.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I have returned from Kaikōura only a few minutes ago, and I would have to say one of the things that I was being asked about was the Hurunui-Kaikōura earthquake recovery legislation—when it was happening and what was going to be in it. So it is a great pleasure to get back here, and it was my good fortune that air traffic control at Wellington was quite cooperative, so I was able to get in a little sooner than otherwise.

But I must say, after spending today down in Kaikōura and actually having a look at the Lyell Creek area, where we could see guys out there at the moment working on the sewerage, which they have actually got up and running, and seeing what was a back lawn but which has now got massive cracks in it and drops of a metre or more towards a creek—a house totally destroyed—and running across that lawn is a giant flexible hose that is now carrying sewage to keep the sewerage system going in that area, you start to get the idea of why we need something like this piece of legislation and why the flexibility that is inherent in this legislation is absolutely vital. They are extraordinary powers that are being given under this bill to the executive, but it is an extraordinary event and it is quite right and proper that those powers are made available to the executive. And it is great to see support from the other parties, because this is a parliamentary response. It is an across-Parliament response—everybody is involved in it—and that is the way it should be.

Being on the ground today, looking at some of the landslips—and I noted in some of the speech before about the sea and where all the spoil was going to go—I can tell you that the sea is now in some cases 50 metres further away from the road than it used to be. So the imagination of people has run a little bit wild on some of this stuff, but the ability for the road to be shifted and for what was the beach to be turned into a road, so as to get a road and a rail line at a safe enough distance from the hill, where slips may occur in future earthquakes, which would be quite dangerous—getting that buffer of some distance would be quite vital. We do not know whether the engineers are going to come up with those solutions yet because they are working on them as we speak. But that would be vital power to have.

To go through the normal course of doing all the resource consents for these sorts of events, we would still be planning in 12 months’ time, and that is certainly not acceptable to the people of Kaikōura and it is not acceptable to the people of New Zealand. This is a vital route for “New Zealand Inc.”. It is not just a vital route for the people of Kaikōura, and the people of the Hurunui as well.

On Wednesday I was in wineries that have suffered wine tank damage, and I can say that we are truly fortunate that this earthquake occurred just after 12 midnight. Had it occurred just after 12 noon, there would have been a significant death toll—I am absolutely certain of that. Those slips—and there are a huge number of slips and some of them are truly enormous—would certainly have had cars underneath them. Some of the winery staff who may have had the misfortune to be in amongst the tank farms—that would not have been a very good place to be. So we were very, very fortunate. We dodged a bullet, I think, on that one.

I note the independent panel and the committee were talked about. I do not have a view on the size of those, but we do have to remember that from the Hurunui through the Kaikōura region and right up to Marlborough there are huge differences in the areas that have been affected. They have been affected in different ways, and that is what lies ahead of us as we dig into this a little more—no pun intended—into the damage on the roads, on the farms, and in the buildings. We just simply do not know what we are going to find, so the flexibility that we are afforded by this legislation will be very, very welcome.

As an aside, today we had a look at some maps showing the fault lines and some of the slippages that occurred, vertically and horizontally. One of the fault lines moved 10 metres horizontally. I mean, that is a significant amount of ground movement and certainly not a piece of ground you would want to be standing on at the time that occurred. So I think we all agree that it was a significant event.

I am very pleased that the House and the Parliament are supportive of the people of Kaikōura in a tangible way by getting some legislation and the tools in place that will allow a recovery to occur much quicker than would otherwise be the case. With that, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to take a call on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill, to reaffirm Labour’s support for it, and to play a role in my capacity as chair of the Regulations Review Committee to underscore the implications of the report of the committee, which has been achieved by consensus, for this legislation and other legislation that might follow it.

Of course, this is a bill that is a very important bill about a very tragic event. Before saying anything else, may I reaffirm Labour’s deepest sympathies for those who have lost loved ones, those who have lost substantial property, and those whose lives have been literally torn apart over the last few weeks by the events of that massive 7.8 quake. I wish to extend our thanks and my own thanks to all of those in emergency services, the armed services, and the Government who have been doing their very best to remediate that.

This bill enjoys, I believe, the very widespread support of this House. There has been good consultation and compromise between parties in bringing the bill to the House. We are all joined together to do the very best that we can for the people of Hurunui-Kaikōura, and I think this is Parliament working at its best.

The contribution that I wish to make today is to provide some background on the work that the Regulations Review Committee has been doing over the last 16 months—which it has achieved by consensus, without a vote—which it offers to the House today, so that it might inform consideration of this bill. In doing so can I thank the deputy chair, Mr Andrew Bayly; your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker, a member of that committee; Mr Chris Bishop; and my good colleague, the shadow Attorney-General, David Parker, who will be leading our team’s work on the Local Government and Environment Committee, which will consider the bill in more detail. I wish to reaffirm that the recommendations in the Regulations Review Committee report issued today are all by consensus—there has been no need for a vote. All members have joined together with expert advice to bring a consensus set of recommendations to the House.

So what was this about? After the 2010 and 2011 earthquake bills and Acts were passed and used, the Parliamentary Counsel Office began a process of review, which—to cut a long story short—identified some constitutional weaknesses in those bills, which were not abused, as Mr Parker has said, in practice, but which, from a legislative point of view, certainly could have been improved upon. The House then later, through the Business Committee, asked the Regulations Review Committee to do a very wide-ranging survey of emergency powers and to make recommendations on whether there should be a, if you like, generic draft future national emergencies bill passed by the House, or if not, on how we should best from a constitutional point of view deal with the need to respond to major national emergencies.

That report is out today. It traverses a wide range of inputs. I wish to acknowledge the work of Mr Jason McHerron, our expert barrister; a wide range of submissions; the work of the Parliamentary Counsel Office; and, in particular, can I single out the work of the Christchurch City Council, which made an extensive submission based on its experience in the 2010 and 2011 bills and quakes. Out of all of that—to cut 100 pages of analysis down to a few short points—the committee distilled by agreement three core principles and 11 recommendations, and I am going to take the House extremely quickly through those.

The first principle is that the Regulations Review Committee considered but rejected the idea that there should be generic national emergency legislation prepared in advance. Although we understood that that would give the House more time to consider the detail, that time was outweighed by the fact that any such generic legislation would by definition need to be so broad—because it would have to cover a myriad of possibilities, from a pandemic to an earthquake to a volcanic eruption—that it would be constitutionally offensive to pass all of that power to the executive in advance. It is better, on reflection, to have bespoke or individual legislation tailored to individual emergencies, with a realistically quick timetable and appropriate powers for the executive, such that the constitution was disturbed to the minimum amount possible. That was a key recommendation of the committee.

Some of the sub-points recommended under that—“As much time as possible in the circumstances should be allowed for select committee consideration of emergency legislation.” My colleague David Parker has made the point that a little more in this case could probably have been fitted in and is desirable as a matter of practice.

Thirdly, that “Existing select committees should consider emergency legislation.” We considered, but did not agree with, the idea that a separate select committee be set up, simply because that would be more difficulty and hassle, if you like, than the job required. Another committee, the Local Government and Environment Committee in this case, is perfectly able, especially with the ability to sub members in and out.

Fourthly, that “Emergency legislation should take the form of primary legislation wherever reasonably possible, rather than relying on broad powers to make delegated legislation.”—that is, Parliament is sovereign. Parliament—where members are elected by the people, from whom all moral authority and constitutional propriety flows—is the place where the major laws should be passed, not Orders in Council through a Cabinet process, which do not come to the floor of the House. Everyone—and this is a consensus report—recognises the need for prompt and robust executive action in an emergency, and we in the Labour team are supporting the National Government in its response to Kaikōura. There is no question that we are all putting politics aside to do the very, very best for the people of Marlborough and North Canterbury. But, as a matter of constitutionality, as much as possible should be done in this way, through the House, and as little as possible behind closed doors, if you like, through the Order in Council process. The language might not be street talk, but it is really important.

I will rip through quickly—“Powers to override enactments by Order in Council should provide a ‘positive list’ …”. It is great to see that the Minister and the executive, no doubt with the positive influence of the Attorney-General—whom I also wish to recognise for his role—have adopted that recommendation in this. As Mr Parker said, the positive list of Acts here is rather long. It is subject to the scrutiny of the select committee, and its members will turn their minds to whether it should be added to or not.

I do want to reaffirm the point that the ability to add further Acts should, in principle, be done by primary legislation through this House. That is a key recommendation here, and in this case there is a kind of hybrid where there is an opportunity for the executive to add to the list, provided the House later reaffirms it. That is not ideal. I hope the select committee will give that some consideration.

The second key theme is that there must be adequate safeguards. As you know, there are several important ways around how that should be done “Orders in Council should be subject to scrutiny before and after they are made.”, and the Regulations Review Committee, amongst others, is well placed to do that. This House has, in this bill, got before it a process whereby either the Regulations Review Committee or leaders of parties can scrutinise orders before they are made. That is not quite ideal—it would be better to provide for both. The select committee may wish to consider that.

“The right to seek judicial review of Orders in Council made under emergency legislation should be preserved and upheld.” This bill does not quite achieve that. Under clause 8(3) it allows judicial review on only points of law, not points of fact, and that defeats the general purpose of a judicial review, which is to ensure a robust process of consideration of the facts. I do not believe that a court would unduly hamper ministerial action in the case of a national emergency—it would take account of those needs of urgency and robust response. In so doing, it is my personal view that the House should have another look at that clause 8(3) provision and allow judicial review. That is the view of the Regulations Review Committee as well.

Eighthly: “Legislation for national emergencies should have regard to international norms and benchmarks.” These have been published by the UN and others; I will not labour it. Ninthly: “Bespoke emergency powers should be in force only for as long as is reasonably necessary, and should have … sunset provisions.” Finally—and thanks to the Christchurch City Council for emphasising this 10th one—“Legislation must reflect the principle that recovery … starts from day one.”

I do not want to unduly detain the House. I want to thank everybody who has helped to put this contribution before the House today, and I trust that the Local Government and Environment Committee will do its work thoroughly in considering the bill in the time available. Thank you very much.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill in its first reading. I have got the pleasure of chairing the Local Government and Environment Committee, which has been, over the last 24 hours or so, doing, I think, very diligent work on the second piece of legislation in a suite of legislative initiatives—this bill is the third—that Parliament this week has been considering on behalf of the people, the citizens, and the communities of Kaikōura and the Hurunui, in a measured but quick, prompt response to the needs resulting from the disaster that occurred there some 14 days ago.

The trick, I guess, that we as legislators have to address in terms of the bill that is immediately before us is exactly as the Hon David Cunliffe has addressed in his contribution to Parliament this afternoon. It is about ensuring that the constitutional protocols and securities and proper regulations that go with the primacy of this House in its statute-making authority are maintained at a time of emergency but, at the same time, trying to balance that propriety against the need for urgent, prompt, and swift action at a time when pragmatic decisions need to be made. This bill seeks to attempt to do that, and I think that the mechanism that has been provided to us in the bill provides a series of appropriate safeguards but, at the same time, ensures that a swift, prompt, and pragmatic response by us as parliamentarians can occur to ensure that recovery in the region occurs with the least amount of fuss or number of inhibitors being put in front of that recovery as possible.

The select committee is required to report this bill back next Tuesday, and so it will be appropriate for the select committee to approach—as we did with the earlier piece of legislation this week—a number of targeted stakeholders and submitters, and we agreed in principle in the select committee this morning to do just that. So we will be attempting to do that absolutely as soon as this first reading is complete.

We hope to meet as a committee on Monday to hear from submitters and to go over the detail of the legislation, but I think that if the work of the committee over the last 24 hours is anything to go by, we can be assured that the goodwill and cross-party collaboration that has occurred in the last few days will be maintained in this piece of legislation to ensure that, in fact, we do maintain those constitutional backstops and checks and balances while, at the same time, achieving the outcomes that we seek on behalf of the people, citizens, and communities of Hurunui and Kaikōura.

On that brief note, I am looking forward to participating with my colleagues on the committee as this process unfolds, and to working with the advisers, who, I might also say, have been working extraordinarily hard over the last few days to prepare us with good advice, sound advice, and very, very good direction. I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on this, the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill, and offer the Greens’ support for this to select committee. The bill does two significant things. Firstly, it extends the Resource Management Act time frame for people in quake-affected areas to give notice to the consent authority that emergency works have been undertaken. It extends that from 7 days to 40 days. It also extends the time frame in which any required resource consent must be applied for, from 20 days to 120 working days. The second thing, which is the subject of most of the debate this afternoon, is that it enables the Government to introduce Orders in Council to amend or override primary legislation.

The purpose of this bill is, clearly, to assist affected areas with economic recovery, planning processes, rebuilding, recovery of land and infrastructure, and increasing resilience. This is, obviously, a very important purpose. The Green Party is right behind the quake-affected communities. We are absolutely committed to doing what we can to ensure that they get the support that they need and that this support is actually what they need, and not just what the executive thinks they might need. So we are also, understandably, cautious about the danger of important, precious services or environments being irreparably damaged due to rushed processes or smart ideas from the Beehive.

Passing legislation that gives the executive the power to override legislation that has been passed by the will of Parliament is no small thing. It is something to be avoided wherever possible. Legislation, however imperfect it may seem to me at times, represents the will of the people, and provisions in primary legislation are usually there for a reason. We must, however, acknowledge that in times of disaster the context changes significantly and that processes that may normally be beneficial may no longer make sense or may, in fact, create unnecessary barriers to recovery. We also acknowledge that response and recovery are complex—and it may not be possible right now to anticipate accurately the exact needs of a community—and that passing specific bills for each specific need when it may be urgent may not actually help the communities at the time. So passing legislation like this puts considerable trust in the executive to accurately assess whether an Order in Council is necessary, how long it should be necessary for, and what changes will provide the best result for affected communities.

We are happy to support this discussion going to select committee, but we share the concerns that have been raised by the Labour members—that reporting back on Tuesday does feel too quick and unnecessarily shortened. That was a learning from Christchurch. At this end, we should be taking the time—not excessive time, but just enough time for people’s views to be inputted into this process—because there are huge things at stake with this legislation. We are happy for it to go to select committee, noting that there have been significant changes and some safeguards put in place, and we want that balance to be checked in the select committee process.

Things that have been added to this that were not there in terms of Christchurch are that in the legislation there is a requirement that the Order in Council must be necessary or desirable for the proposed purpose, and that the extent of the Order in Council must not be broader than is required and that it will be able to be tested in law. There is a list of Acts that an order can relate to, and there are 40 Acts on that list, although there is still a provision here for the Government to be able to introduce an Order in Council into another Act that is not on this list. But we have been told that the ability to do this will be limited to times when this House is adjourned, when it is not possible for the House to come together and check that particular plan, and that when the House comes back, that new Act and that order would need to be positively confirmed by Parliament so that Parliament would have the opportunity to say “Actually, no. We don’t think that’s valid.”, and that Order in Council would lapse at that point. That is a significant check.

With this legislation there is an establishment of a review panel that has designated places for iwi and local government representatives and legal expertise. I also share the view, I think, of David Parker that it may make sense for that legal expertise to be a judge. That panel will provide advice to the relevant Minister on the proposed Order in Council, and its recommendations on the draft order must be publicly available on an internet website. The Greens will be proposing that there be environmental expertise on that panel when an Order in Council is relevant to the protections of the environment.

There was initially provision for engagement with substantially affected persons in the legislation. I understand that has been taken out of the draft that we have with us at the moment, with the understanding that that will happen naturally through the processes. We will certainly be having discussions in the select committee to check people’s comfort with that point. In the initial draft that we saw, it was about the people that the Minister considered substantially affected that we had an issue with, as it was, so we will be interrogating that point in the committee stage.

The legislation will also require that the Minister publish the reasons for recommending the Order in Council, so that will be open to public scrutiny. The Regulations Review Committee of Parliament will also have a chance to look at the draft. If the House is in adjournment, then the party leaders will get a copy of the draft, so it will be open to scrutiny at least, if not a vote in the House. It is important to note that orders once made are not legally challengeable, except that the Regulations Review Committee does have the ability in certain circumstances to overturn them. That is my understanding. There is a time frame on these orders. Apparently, for good practice there is an expected limit of Orders in Council to be up to between 3 and 5 years. This is until April 2018, which is significantly shorter than that time.

There is a note in the legislation as well that the orders last until April 2018 unless sooner revoked. I do want to particularly point that out to interested parties as I believe that implies that there is potential value in lobbying the Minister if, in the event, any interested party thinks that an order that has been put in place has served its use—that it is possible to have the orders taken off the books, I guess—before that completion date if they are no longer necessary or desirable for the proposed purpose. There is no avoiding the fact that this bill does give significant powers to central government and removes proper consultation provisions and rights of appeal, but that has to be balanced, and we really do understand that that has to be balanced with the need for Government to support communities to be able to recover.

We will be looking through the select committee process, though, to make sure that that process really does understand the need to protect our environment and get that expertise in the process, because there are some changes that you can never undo. In times of emergency it is very easy to rush into making decisions that may cause irreparable harm to our environment. We want to make sure that everything possible is done to prevent that possibility. We are supporting this bill and would like to acknowledge the Acting Minister of Civil Defence for the process up to this point.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First joins all of the other parties to ensure that there are adequate Government powers so that what needs to be done gets done in order to make sure that the people of Kaikōura and other affected areas get what they need and they get it quickly and effectively. Without these sorts of powers it is unlikely that that would happen. We have no difficulty in supporting a bill for that reason, and also we have no difficulty with the shortened time frame within which the bill will pass. We think it is one of those pieces of legislation that we ought to be able to deal with quickly and effectively, given the way that is actually proposed.

In addition to the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill, which has had a lot of attention this week, this bill, which I think of as the Order in Council bill, is certainly needed. But there needs to, of course, be appropriate checks and balances to “exempt, modify, or extend provisions of certain enactments.”, as it says in the explanatory note. It is those checks and balances that the select committee will particularly need to focus on because, as others have said, these are pretty extraordinary powers. Subject to that, New Zealand First will be very happy to support the bill.

I just want to go through some of the aspects of those checks and balances, which we are going to need to pay particular attention to over the next few days. The first thing, of course, to note is that it applies to only a relatively discrete area of the country—the affected areas, as they are called in the bill. Most particularly, though, any order made must be necessary or desirable—necessary or desirable—for the purposes of the bill, and not be broader than is reasonably necessary. Because that is the crux of the bill and the most important of the checks and balances, we ought to pay particular attention to the words used, by which I mean look at the purposes of the bill. They are set out in clause 3.

I am going to read them out because I think it is important that that be done. So paragraph (a) is to “provide for economic recovery; ”, paragraph (b) is to “provide for the planning, rebuilding, and recovery of affected communities and persons, including—(i) the repair and rebuilding of land, infrastructure, and other property of affected communities or of any affected persons; and (ii) safety enhancements to, and improvements to the resilience of, that land, infrastructure, or other property;”. Then it goes on with paragraph (c), to “facilitate co-ordinated efforts and processes used to bring about the short-term, medium-term, and long-term recovery and enhancement of affected communities;”, and, lastly, there is paragraph (d), to “facilitate the restoration and improvement of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being, and the resilience, of affected communities or of any affected persons.”

So it is fairly wide ranging. It covers affected communities and affected persons and provides for safety enhancements and also improvements, so that they get the resilience they will need for the future. I think that is most appropriate, because we do need to remember that this is not a past event. This is a current and future event. There has been a sequence of earthquakes that will definitely carry on, and, indeed, future events may even be larger and more damaging than those we have had already. So I think it is important to particularly think about the purposes in relation to the first and most important of the checks and balances the order must be necessary or desirable to achieve those purposes.

In addition to that, there is a panel to be appointed under clause 11. I think it is very important that that panel be of people with real expertise, whether it be environmental, construction, agricultural, cultural, or whatever, because, again, you need to refer back to the purposes of the legislation. I will be interested to see who ultimately gets appointed. I am sure a good job will be done and they will do a good job themselves.

In addition to that, there is a provision for the draft of any order to have to go to the Regulations Review Committee, or, if it is not possible to get that together, then at least it should go to the leader of each of the political parties represented in Parliament. That provides another important check and balance and ensures that there will not be any politicisation of the process. None of us wants to see that. Of course, the bill makes it very clear that the responsible Minister, whichever one it may be, must actually have regard to the recommendations or the comments of both that panel and the Regulations Review Committee. So there will not be a free hand here. I think those are important provisions in the bill.

In addition to that, there is an engagement process provided for. That provides for the engagement of substantially affected persons but also the public, if the local authority believes that it should do that in respect of any particular order. I think that is very important because, as we have seen in the Christchurch earthquake, it is very easy for people to feel alienated from these processes. I hope that the local authority makes sure it does a good job in that respect, too.

The Minister, in deciding to make an order, must record and give reasons, and I think that is very important that that be on the record. I want to also approve particularly of clause 10, and I think this is better than what was done for the Canterbury earthquakes, because what it does is list, first of all, some legislation that cannot be amended by any of the orders made under this bill. They include Acts like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Electoral Act, which is what you would expect. Clause 7 also provides for a list, I understand, of two or three dozen bills that are those that can be amended under this legislation, with a provision for other such bills to be added. It is a good idea to do it that way, rather than have some general provision trying to cover the whole thing.

In addition to all of that, you have to remember that this legislation will have limited duration. The orders under it will be revoked on 31 March 2018 or sooner than that, so it is not as though this is going to go on for a very long time. Hopefully, that will be a long enough period so that any of the orders necessary under this legislation can, in fact, be made. In addition to that, clause 7 provides for additional areas and, as I have already said, additional Acts to be added to the application of the bill, except in limited circumstances that are set out in the bill.

We in New Zealand First do believe that this bill is absolutely necessary, that the checks and balances ought to be adequate, that the people of Kaikōura and, indeed, the people of New Zealand should have confidence that the powers granted will not be excessive, and that there will be proper supervision and limitations on the powers. As I have said, it is a necessary bill. It is properly balanced, with appropriate checks and balances. It is something that I believe will be an important aspect of the recovery of Kaikōura and other affected areas, and I look forward to taking part in the select committee process to go through the bill and make sure that what I have said actually is the case and that the legislation will properly record and state that.

Having said all of that, I do want to say that the process so far with the emergency legislation has been very good. I think the process for this is likely to be just as good. For that reason, New Zealand First will have no hesitation in supporting this bill.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a pleasure to rise to take a short call on a bill where I follow such a large number of constructive speeches on an issue. By the time it gets to me—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not stuff it up.

IAN McKELVIE: —ha, ha—no doubt the detail has been well explained. But I just want to make a couple of comments. I will comment on some of the features of the bill, but I just want to make a comment about some of our past disasters in New Zealand. Often in the past we have reinstated things in a manner that the law allows us to do. This bill will enable a bit of freedom around the thinking around the reinstatement of some assets and other things that have been damaged during the course of this earthquake. It will be hugely practical from a New Zealand perspective. It will be very positive. So I think that is the first point I want to make.

The second point I want to make is that the Christchurch earthquake has, I guess, taught New Zealand an awful lot about reinstating assets and about how we might go about it in an efficient and effective manner. The fact is that some 60-odd Orders in Council have been issued in the Christchurch case. None of them have been challenged, and I am hoping that as a result of the chairman of the Regulations Review Committee’s long statement on this, none of these will be challenged either. I am confident that they will not.

So I think it is worth noting that these orders apply only to earthquake-affected areas, and only to response to or recovery of those areas. I think the next thing worth recording is that they will expire in mid-2018, and no doubt the select committee will have some discussion around that. In fact, the select committee will have some discussion around most of these issues.

The other thing that is quite apparent is that many unforeseen issues will arise during the course of this recovery, and, of course, with an earthquake you continue to have aftershocks and things like that. There may well be further damage that we do not understand at the moment. So that is another issue I think is really important. An independent panel will advise this, as noted by the previous speakers, and I am sure that panel will be competent. I think that we, as the public of New Zealand, can have every confidence that this whole situation will be handled extremely well by the Parliament and by the Government. I think that the oversight that will be provided for this will be very appropriate. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—that is my lot.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Green Party is pleased to be supporting the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill to the select committee. I agree with Minister Brownlee that this bill is no small thing because of the major increase in ministerial and executive powers that it allows. The Green Party has long been vigilant about increases in executive power because of our desire to protect local democracy and ensure that people who are affected by the decisions actually have a say in those decisions. It is a key part of recovery that people are involved in decisions about the recovery. This bill, in allowing Ministers through Orders in Council to override more than 45 pieces of primary legislation without the benefit of select committee scrutiny and without the benefit of submissions to select committee and consideration of those submissions by the committee, is a major law change.

We have been quite critical of the Canterbury legislation, not so much the Orders in Council that were exercised under that legislation, but because of the substantial powers that were given to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the way in which decisions were generally made behind closed doors, with people not knowing who was making the decision or whether any of the comments that they had made in written submissions were taken heed of, and with no ability for people to actually front up and have their say in front of the person making the decision. This week we have seen with the other bill, in terms of the emergency powers and the extended time frames around the Resource Management Act and the Kaikōura harbour, the value of having even a short select committee process and having people front up.

So we are proceeding with considerable caution and will be engaging very carefully with the select committee process in terms of the wide range of Acts that are in schedule 2. There are Acts like the Resource Management Act, the Conservation Act, the Marine Mammals Protection Act, and the Reserves Act. We want to understand a little better why officials consider that Acts like the Marine Mammals Protection Act need to be part of that schedule and potentially be able to be overridden by Orders in Council, because this bill covers a very large area. My reading of it is if there are other aftershocks that affect the Wellington region as part of the Kaikōura sequence, then Wellington could also be covered by Orders in Council that are made under the bill.

We are pleased that the concerns that constitutional lawyers and others raised about the post - Canterbury earthquake legislation have been recognised and that there are additional safeguards in this bill around the powers of the Ministers through Order in Council through the ability of the Regulations Review Committee to disallow Orders in Council. But that committee, of course, needs to be expanded to ensure that there is wider representation from across the Parliament. The bill provides for the Minister to publish reasons for his or her decision, and for a review panel. We agree with other speakers who have suggested that the review panel needs to be chaired by a judge or former judge, rather than just a lawyer.

I listened closely to the Minister’s speech when he said that the Orders in Council and the way in which activities happen under those will have to be done responsibly without any opportunistic behaviour if there are increased powers given to local authorities, for example, or infrastructure and network utility operators. We are really concerned that often the tendency with major natural disasters is that the shock and awe after the event means that people are prepared to let things go a little more. Given that Kaikōura has led the country in making its natural environment and its spectacular coast a core part of its brand and its tourism industry, we want to make sure that that legacy is not in any way placed at risk by short-term thinking that may occur in emergency situations.

So we are supporting the bill. We will be looking to see what further safeguards can be added to it, but we recognise that Governments post-emergency do need to make decisions quickly, but those decisions should always be made thoughtfully and with a view to the longer term. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Meka Whaitiri.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Labour supports the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill to the select committee and joins with all the speakers who have spoken formerly.

We acknowledge that this is the last of the kind of legislative trilogy of bills to address the tragedy that occurred in the districts of Hurunui and Kaikōura. I also want to add my acknowledgment of the recovery personnel who worked, particularly immediately after the earthquake, and who continue working today, and, obviously, those who are yet to come into the area to help out with the recovery. I just want to acknowledge that. I guess, as members of this House, it is important that their work is not done in vain, so it makes sense that we are standing in support of this particular bill.

Previous speakers have touched on it, but just in terms of the explanatory note, the learnings from the Christchurch earthquake are acknowledged in the explanatory note. What I found interesting was the point around the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010 and then the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011. I am sure the Acting Minister of Civil Defence would know that the point was made around the fact that the mechanism attracted some criticism, but it may be of interest to the House that 60 Orders in Council were made through those particular pieces of legislation. Also, I note that not all requests for Order in Council in terms of the Christchurch example were granted and that there was one case of successful judicial challenge involving the unsuccessful challenge of the demolition of a heritage building.

As previous speakers have already alluded to, I guess, in terms of the checks and balances, essentially, how do we ensure that this bill—which is the Order in Council mechanism that people have spoken about—can address the economic recovery for those communities and councils? The Minister did touch on them, so I will not repeat them, but I will note that when it comes to the Local Government and Environment Committee we will be scrutinising to ensure that we have got the right mix of checks and balances there, and, of course, it will be interesting to hear what submitters will have to say in terms of assuring that.

I do not want to go on much more, but I do want to acknowledge that some of us are a little jaded, having sat for quite a significant amount of time considering this bill, but I too want to add my acknowledgment of the officials who have supported our select committee. For us to move as quickly as we can over a piece of legislation within 25 or 24 hours, as the chair quite rightly acknowledged, it requires the diligence of not only officials but I am talking about clerks of our select committee as well as the Parliamentary Counsel Office in terms of the next bill that we are going to bring.

What is important for me is that when we need to move urgently in this House in dealing with emergency legislation, we are creating a standard of how we do that, with all the moving parts—from the Minister, across parties, and right through to officials—to ensure that we are able to respond in a timely manner when crises occur around the country. I just want to put that on record. I want to thank our officials. We are still not through, but it is enough to say that without their support we would not be able to pass this bill in the timely manner that I am sure the Minister and the Government want to do it. We look forward to this bill coming to the select committee. Kia ora tātou.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. Making a brief contribution on this Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill in this first reading debate, I just want to respond to some of the points raised by the member Eugenie Sage. I think that there have been very careful steps taken to ensure that in amending statutory provisions by Order in Council we are not going too far. You will see in the bill that it has exemptions and it will not be used to override such important fundamental rights and obligations as are provided for in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or the Electoral Act 1993.

I am very fortunate to have a good friend visiting at the moment, Professor Christopher Pope, who is an academic from Seattle, and he was telling me just today that it is important to be evidence-based and scientific in your approach, and I agree entirely with that. If we are being evidence-based, and if we look back—for the 60 Orders in Council that were issued pertaining to the Christchurch earthquake, there were no successful judicial challenges, and not all Orders in Council were granted. I think we have a good track record of proceeding in a democratic and transparent way on these matters. These are very important provisions that will be used to improve housing, to undertake geotechnical assessments, to streamline planning processes, and even to provide tax reporting deadline relief to those who have been affected by the earthquake. This is an important piece of legislation, and it must pass. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak in the first reading of this recovery bill. As has been mentioned, this is the third piece of legislation in the trifecta of bills that we are enacting at an accelerated pace to address the earthquakes in the Hurunui and Kaikōura districts. I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill, and I endorse all of the cross-party efforts and the collaboration that is taking place in the drafting and the passage of this bill to this point.

This is an extraordinary piece of legislation in one sense, in that it is granting powers to the executive to override legislation through Orders in Council. However, it is necessary, and it has been adopted before, obviously, with the Christchurch experience, and it is necessary to facilitate recovery. We know that there will be a host of different requirements that will need to be compliant with the law, but, in some certain instances, the law as it stands will need to be amended to ensure that we are able to conduct whatever it is, across a range of different areas, to facilitate that recovery. It could be in emergency housing, it could be in roading, or it could be in taxation. It could be in a whole raft of areas.

The beauty of this bill is that although it does provide, in one sense, extraordinary powers, it is very contained and it is very prescribed. It is not as if these powers will be abused—I certainly hope that will not happen. They are put in place because they are necessary. I do commend the drafting because, as far as my reading of it is concerned, every scenario that may be required is captured by the wording in this bill: modification, extension, and suspension. So any malleable twisting of the law that is required is catered for by the measures and by the drafting of the bill, as I read it.

But one point I want to raise—and I do not want to extend my contribution longer than required—and one point I do want to commend is the appointment of the review panel. I note that the review panel that will review the recommendations that will be made by the relevant Minister, on whatever particular piece of the prescribed legislation that may be requiring an amendment or requiring an Order in Council, requires the Minister to appoint one iwi representative.

I just want to note that the affected area of this piece of legislation in this bill is beyond just one iwi. We know that in the Christchurch experience there was just one iwi affected, and that was Ngāi Tahu. But in this legislation we are dealing with the upper South Island. We are dealing with the Marlborough and Blenheim areas, and we are also dealing across Cook Strait, into the Wellington area. We are talking about the iwi at the top of the South Island and, in particular, in the Blenheim and Marlborough regions: Rangitāne, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Toa, and there is a host of iwi, likewise, up and over into the Wellington area. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of this. Because the panel has only one iwi appointee, I am sure that that iwi appointee would have some endorsement or support from all of the affected iwi that are contemplated by this bill, and not just one particular iwi. I would just draw that to the Minister’s attention, through that single person who is appointed as the iwi appointee.

Apart from that, yes, these are extraordinary measures, but extraordinary emergencies require these sorts of enactments of legislation of this type. I know that careful consideration has been given. I do acknowledge the select committee that will be meeting in haste—I guess on Monday—to hear submitters on this particular bill. I am sure that they will make any additional amendments that may be required. But apart from those points that I have just raised, I do support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill be reported back to the House by 6 December 2016, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I think that discharges the necessary commentary. Can I just indicate to the House, though, that should the committee, after its deliberations on Monday, think a small amount of additional time is needed, then I am sure there would be no hesitation from the Business Committee to make that extension. But, in any event, we would like to see this passed late next week.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill

Second Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for this bill to be debated as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave has been sought for all provisions to be taken as one question. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection.

Parts 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I thought I might begin this contribution by talking to the Supplementary Order Paper that stands in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee, Supplementary Order Paper 253. Because of the truncated process, with this bill having been read a first time earlier in the week, going to the select committee for a very short period—was it a day; I do not know. It seems to have been a long week. A day, was it?

Andrew Bayly: A long day.

Hon DAVID PARKER: A long day. There is insufficient time for parliamentary counsel to draft into a later version of the bill the amendments that are suggested, which are not very substantial, but none the less it is not possible to produce another version of the bill. So the procedure that has been adopted is that the changes recommended by the select committee are set out in a revision-tracked version of the document, which has been tabled in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and we thank him for doing that.

Can I thank the officials for their participation and the submitters who at very short notice submitted. I just want to take a few minutes to bring to the Committee’s attention the recommendations from the select committee that are set out in the revision-tracked Supplementary Order Paper, and then make reference to an issue that is not an enormous issue but it is one issue that I have in respect of my own amendment, which is a separate document.

The main changes that have been made by this bill are threefold. One is that it changes the notice period that councils and owners of public infrastructure have to give when they are doing something without a resource consent as an emergency repair, pursuant to section 330 of the Resource Management Act and some subsequent sections that relate to that. That seems sensible.

We extended the period recommended in the version that came to select committee, for the timing of giving notice of exercising these emergency powers, to 40 days. Our reason for doing that was that it was pointed out that for some of that work, 14 days would have already passed—or at least 10 working days. Some of that work would have been started immediately, and it was thought, particularly given the intervening holiday period, that that will further make some of this administrative work a bit difficult, but it was appropriate to allow 60 working days for that notice to be given rather than the 40 recommended in that version of the bill. We did not change the period of 120 working days, which applies to when a resource consent has to be applied for retrospectively. I do not think there is much more in respect of that part that I want to mention.

In respect of the part relating to farmers’ rights to rehabilitate their land or to make emergency repairs to roads or ponds or dairy sheds—whatever it is—we, again, have recommended that their right to do that be carried on until 31 July 2017, rather than 30 March 2017. That was in response to Federated Farmers and the Kaikōura District Council both telling us that some of these practical measures will be needed following rains that will not come until next winter. Some of the effects of the earthquake, once you get a bit of rain on some of these slopes that are more erosion-prone or partially down, are such that land will need to be modified probably after those rains next winter. So the date they asked for is 31 July 2017, and the committee thought that was a reasonable request.

There are two other points that I will make if I have time before I sit down. We did try to make clear, in respect of the Kaikōura Harbour rehabilitation work that is necessary, that the wording was a little bit, I thought, confusing in that it introduced this new notion that depositing, other than dumping, when they already had the right to dump, is limited to dumping the dredged spoil on the land or foreshore rather than at sea. So we have cleared that up. They have also got the right to discharge this sort of material that is disturbed as they dredge. So, for example, if you were dredging an area or blasting a rock that needs to be removed, some of that minor debris will inevitably be scattered, and that is allowed, pursuant to section 16(2)(f). We thought that that plus the dumping right was all that was needed, and they did not need a separate right to deposit. I think that is a good change because I thought it was a bit confusing to add that additional part.

I am sure others will make other points, and I will not try to cover all of the little changes. I think they are the main ones that I would refer to. The only other point I would make is that there was a discussion at the select committee as to what happens to enforcement proceedings. Clause 13 of this provision suggests that enforcement proceedings, after all of these things happen, should be able to be taken only by the relevant local authority. I agree that we should be very permissive for people to do things, but then having gone too far or having refused to take the steps that are relaxed under this provision, but none the less necessary, eventually, I think that people other than the council ought to be able to enforce. Indeed, we had submissions to that effect. Select committee members saw that for themselves, but we had similar submissions, I think, from the Legislation Advisory Committee and another submitter whose name I have forgotten. They said you do not need to do that, so I have got a Supplementary Order Paper that knocks out clause 13 and the related clause 14(3)(b). I think it would be preferable if we did remove that. The bill will still have our support if it is not; I just think it would be better legislation if that was not there.

The final thing—in fact, I might leave it to one of the others to talk about the notice provisions that we have in respect of where someone is not there when a network utility authority or a council comes along and does something to the land. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. It was a very constructive process in the select committee and, like others, I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary work by officials from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and also the Ministry for the Environment, particularly when some of those officials have been displaced from their buildings in Wellington.

This bill makes quite major changes to existing legislation, particularly the Resource Management Act. It is giving rural landholders in Kaikōura, Hurunui, Marlborough, and potentially also Tasman and the Nelson area quite wide powers to do activities on their land in response to the earthquake; to do vegetation clearance, undertake earth works, and activities in riverbeds, if those are proportionate with the response that is needed to the damage that is being done by the earthquakes or there is a significant risk of injury or risk to stock. So it is giving very permissive status around this. There is a good deal of trust that landholders will not use this power to do things that they might want to do without getting a resource consent. I guess it requires the councils in the districts to actually monitor, perhaps by ear, and get a reasonable handle on what is going on.

Because a lot of these properties are thousands of hectares in size, the damage has been significant. We do want people to be able to recover as quickly as possible, but we also want to ensure that the environmental effects of these activities are of a proportionate scale in accordance with the legislation.

The other major area that the bill deals with—and there were improvements made in select committee, as Mr Parker has noted—was in relation to the blasting, dredging, and related works in South Bay and around Ingles Wharf in North Harbour around the Kaikōura Peninsula. The bill allows over a radius of 0.6 nautical miles, so it extends as far as Cone Rock, I think, in South Bay, and beyond Nine Pin Rock around the North Harbour. It is allowing the regional council, Environment Canterbury, and the Kaikōura District Council to do these works as a controlled activity. The current plan for the area highlights that the peninsula is an area of significant natural value and that any such works have to be undertaken very carefully as a non-complying activity, which, of course, is subject to a great deal more scrutiny under the Resource Management Act and to stiffer tests than controlled activity. So this a commitment by Parliament to allow the councils to restore boat access to those harbours through doing these rehabilitation works.

We were pleased by the clarification in select committee around where the material is to go, making it very clear that that rock is to be dumped on land and is not able to be dumped at sea. There were changes to ensure that the councils actually can consult the wider public if they wish, and we would strongly encourage the councils to do that because there were strong submissions from people like Ted Howard, who is involved with community organisations, about the fact that we are dealing with very complex systems in the marine environment, and, as he said: “We have a great deal of local knowledge present in the community. We ask that at every stage of this process all plans and the rationale for them are made fully publicly available rapidly, and that locals are given an opportunity, for a few hours even, to comment on those plans and any reasonable alternatives.” When communities are involved in critical decisions in response to natural hazard emergencies, they feel they have a stake in those decisions; the decisions are legitimated.

So the council, because of the changes made to the bill, has an opportunity to invite comment, not just from Government agencies, not just from other Ministers like the Minister of Defence, the Minister for Primary Industries, and the Minister of Conservation, but others in the community. We would encourage the councils to do that so that they have as much information as possible contributing to a good decision.

The other changes in the bill, in relation to the time frames, were in response to very practical, pragmatic submissions by Federated Farmers that highlighted the difficulty that the time frames in the bill imposed. We would like to see the councils work alongside landholders, as they are doing already, because we think that people can often make decisions under stress while trying to get their farms up and operating again—to go ahead with things like earthworks when often it will be a combined approach to those problems, working with the council and neighbouring landholders, that may actually develop a better solution.

So it is continuing the good communication that has occurred in the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes to ensure that people are not putting themselves and rivers and land at risk by undertaking quite high-risk activities with a “she’ll be right” attitude. These things have to be done carefully. The land is still very unstable, and people need to do it in quite a considered way.

Supplementary Order Paper 254, in my name, seeks to remove the block that clauses 13 and 22 put on third parties taking enforcement action in the Environment Court against local authorities if they do not carry out their duties responsibly. The Green Party thinks that the ability to take action for a declaration to actually clarify what the council’s legal responsibilities are under the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the ability to require the council to implement its responsibilities are a really important check that should be maintained. Those provisions exist in the Resource Management Act, and what the bill does is override them and say that third parties cannot take enforcement proceedings. Given that the bill creates a very permissive environment for activities on extensive areas of rural land in the northern South Island, and given that it is allowing quite enlarged powers in relation to the works around Kaikōura Harbour, we think that there needs to be this safeguard, which may not even be used but should remain in the law, so that if third parties think that councils are not undertaking their responsibilities appropriately, they can go to the Environment Court and seek clarification of those responsibilities or a direction that the council actually implements the Act.

So we hope that the Minister will consider the Supplementary Order Paper and those deletions to provide this check and a balance on the powers that are being given here to rural landholders to get on with the job but without all of the constraints that you get by going through a normal process under the RMA, and the consideration of impacts that that process provides. We hope that this check and balance, really, remains in the law, rather being removed and it being only consent authorities themselves that can undertake enforcement proceedings. But the select committee process has been a good one, though a tight one, and we look forward to the bill proceeding.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I just wanted to comment briefly on the four most important changes between the original bill and what will, ultimately, be put to the vote. The first of those relates to clause 5(2), and that itself relates to the time within which advice of an activity must be given under section 330A of the principal Act. Originally, the bill said that would be 40 working days or—what is that—8 weeks. I raised with the committee that that might not be adequate and that we ought to be generous with the time for that, and so it was agreed that 60 working days, instead, should be provided for. That is, of course, in addition to the additional days you would get over the Christmas holiday period, and the period runs from when the activity takes place, so it ought to be more than sufficient. It needs to be ample because people, of course—some of the people, at least, who would be involved—will be in remote areas where it is difficult to communicate, and they will be under stress and, quite frankly, have a lot to do to recover from the earthquake. It is better to err on the side of providing too much time rather than too little, so I think that was a good change that has been made.

The second one relates to clause 6 and the notice to be given under subclause (2)(a), as it is now. That provides for a notice to be placed on the land that would give the date and the purpose of entry and contact details. The committee felt, on discussion, that that might not be enough, given the fact that some people could be away either permanently or for extended periods and not actually see those notices, especially if they were on a part of the land that was not readily accessible. So there was an addition to that, which will now appear as (2)(b) in that clause, so that as soon as practicable after entering the land, the local authority or consent authority will have to serve a written notice containing that same information, and you would expect that that would be done by letter in the same way that, for example, rates notices would be sent out—so a good, formal, and reliable way of making sure that people are properly informed.

The third one that I wanted to raise is one of the most important clauses in the bill, and that is clause 16, relating to the meaning of “rehabilitation work”. Of course, as we know, the activity will be a controlled activity so it is one that must be allowed, but with appropriate conditions. The rehabilitation of the Kaikōura Harbour, as we know, is an absolute necessity, but care should still be exercised in doing the work that is carried out so as to avoid unnecessary environmental damage. A number of submitters expressed concerns that the bill had provisions relating to “dumping”, which we were told refers to the removal of material to another site altogether, and the term “depositing”, which means placing the material in another part of the same site where no transportation of it would be required.

There was a lot of discussion about that, and I think as a committee we have come up with a great solution to it, so that clause 16(2)(b) relating to depositing will be removed altogether. We were advised that that is simply not necessary because the works that are envisaged just would not require that provision. That will be good news to the ears of those who are worried that some material excavated from the channel to be created might simply be placed on the shoulder of the channel and do unnecessary damage to the marine environment there. They were very concerned that that could happen. In clause 16(2)(c) only the dumping of the material will be required, and then it will be required only on land or foreshore. Some submitters were concerned about dumping on the foreshore, but it is to be noted that clause 18 will apply to require proper consideration of environmental effects. When you consider, in respect of some of that material placed on the foreshore, that the foreshore has been uplifted anyway and will therefore itself have been irreparably damaged, the possibility of that further damage will be very low.

The other change that was made is that the term “fish” has now been added as one of the specified examples in relation to this so that those who are worried about fishing—and I am one of those—can be assured that the care required concerning environmental effects will also consider that aspect of it.

The fourth and last change that I wanted to mention relates to the public meetings provided for under clause 19. The committee has recommended the addition of clause 19(1)(c), which says that the authority “may, if the consent authority considers it appropriate, hold a meeting to allow those persons to orally present their comments.” There were submissions by a number of people who were concerned that some of the special expertise that local people have—special local knowledge—might be lost if they did not have a chance to say what they wished to say. The committee agreed, therefore, that it would be appropriate that a public meeting be held, where it is advised, concerning some of the applications that might be made—so not necessarily for all, but for those that are appropriate. The committee agreed in the end that it would be best for the council to decide that rather than that be provided for directly in the Act itself.

I think that is a good compromise. People will get a good chance to comment and to share their expertise and their local knowledge, but the council can decide when and where and for which subjects that is appropriate. We do not want it to happen for everything—it would make processes too long and too difficult—but I think that is a good balance between those considerations.

Those are all the particular changes—the most important changes that I think the committee looked at and is recommending to the original bill, and I think that it will make a valuable contribution to ensuring that this legislation will be up to speed, and as good as we can possibly make it, in the time available. I certainly wish the people of Kaikōura well in working their way through this legislation. We have done our best to make it readable for them and understandable, and we will provide them with the powers that they will need to do what is necessary and do it quickly and effectively. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members, we come to the vote, and the question is that—

Steffan Browning: Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is the member going for a call?

Steffan Browning: Yes, I am.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, you must go very quickly. Steffan Browning.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I can see that! I rise to speak on the Committee stage of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. I am very pleased to see that there have been a number of changes made because of the submitters. It was very important that fish were included in this bill; it is very important that notices are actually sent to the landowners of properties that would be affected by this bill.

But I would like to focus a little bit on Supplementary Order Paper 254 from my colleague Eugenie Sage. It is critical that there is a level of oversight, you may say, for people who are wanting to initiate proceedings if something goes wrong. I have experience, up the Clarence Valley, of where people have done the right thing, I think, of getting in and doing some changes, which this bill allows to happen. Although that has been good in this instance at the moment, further activity by some may impact on other landowners. I can think of land where roading goes through it, or a stream is diverted—not by the earthquake but by the remedial actions of someone trying to correct things for themselves or for their own operation or property—and it actually has an impact on others down the line. You could imagine gravel and rubble pouring across someone else’s field, and theoretically they are not meant to do that. Theoretically, this bill suggests that they should not be doing that, but things will happen and people must be able to have redress, because it will be after the event rather than before it as we are avoiding this necessity of having to get consents ahead of the operation.

The same does go for what will happen in the marine area around Kaikōura. I have been there, and I know what is happening in that area, and I can see, again, where you have got the local authorities looking after what they think are their best interests but maybe going a little bit beyond it. There must be opportunity for third parties to have some reach to go for redress out of that. So it will be important for the House to support the Supplementary Order Paper of Eugenie Sage in order to make sure that this anomaly is corrected. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 254 in the name of Eugenie Sage be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): David Parker’s tabled amendment to delete clause 13 is now out of order as being the same as the amendment already negatived. Moving to David Parker’s tabled amendment to clause 14(3)(b), this is out of order as being inconsistent with an earlier decision of the Committee.

Parts 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I move, That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill be now read a third time. The Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill addresses immediate challenges faced by the people of Kaikōura, Marlborough, and Hurunui, enabling them to focus on getting their lives and livelihoods back on track. The earthquakes have resulted in numerous emergency works being undertaken, including roads, bridges, and water pipes across farms in the Kaikōura, Hurunui, and Marlborough areas. There have been effects that will need to be put right fairly quickly in order to move forward.

The geographical isolation caused by the earthquake makes it particularly difficult to prepare resource consent applications and for council staff and consultants to conduct site visits. We do not want the standard time frames in the Resource Management Act (RMA) to distract from that recovery effort. The provisions of this bill will help ease regulatory requirements under the Resource Management Act while still maintaining safeguards for the environment.

Currently, agencies and operators undertaking emergency work must, within 7 days, give notice to the appropriate consent authority that works have been undertaken, and within 20 days they must apply for resource consent requiring activities. The bill extends those time frames and, from the draft bill to what is in front of the house today, the select committee has further extended it from 40 to 60 working days for the notification, and for the retrospective application, if it is required, 120 working days.

The bill enables farmers whose properties have been damaged by earthquakes to undertake emergency works to continue their farming practices for the purpose of life, safety, health and well-being of animals or addressing serious damage to property. These emergency works are regulated under the RMA; the bill makes them a permitted activity, meaning they will not need to apply for a resource consent. Farmers will be required to notify councils, as I said, within the period of time that is now set down as 60 days, even if it is to be, effectively, a deemed consent.

Finally, the bill supports the council’s efforts to restore the damaged Kaikōura harbours, which need to be restored so that critical supplies can be brought in by sea. One of the issues that was faced early on was the fact that the barges located on the Canterbury were unable to come ashore because of the shallowness of that particular channel. It is also very important that the fisheries and associated tourism activities that require those harbours can be put back into operation as soon as possible.

To facilitate the timely restoration of the harbour, the bill changes the status of the activity needed to restore the harbour to “controlled” unless already permitted in the relevant plan. It also provides for the streamlined resource consenting process, which includes consultation with specified parties. This will enable Environment Canterbury and the Kaikōura District Council to apply for retrospective consent after they have begun the harbour restoration, which, it is hoped, will begin by the middle of next week.

The bill requires the environmental effects, including effects of any activity on the marine mammals, fish, and seabirds, to be considered before the activity is undertaken, including how they may be avoided, remedied, or mitigated if there are seen to be adverse effects possible. The bill is one of a number of measures to support communities across the affected area. I think the select committee process, although only short, has been well used by the various political parties who were already supporting this bill but have been able to make some changes that are necessary. I do want to make a comment here about clauses 13 and 22, which were subject to Supplementary Order Papers this afternoon. I can sort of see the point of doing those things, but I was concerned, in the end, that if we were to go down that track, we might actually defeat the purpose of what we are trying to set out here in the first place.

The bill does have some constraints around what people can do in emergency situations. We would expect those to be followed appropriately. Further to those, it is also a time-limited provision that is in place. Although we might want to have some of the arrangements that were proposed—third-party action against regional councils, etc., or the council for not taking any particular action or care—I think that, in the circumstances, that is an undue encumbrance upon them, and in due course we will be able to see exactly how responsibly this bill is exercised. I would encourage people to see it not as carte blanche, but very much as a bill that enables them to do the things they most need to do to get their lives back on track, and not to enhance circumstances that were already existing in those properties. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to support the third reading of this bill. Could I just deal with the point that the Hon Gerry Brownlee referred to just before he sat down again, which was the attempts by Labour and other parties to knock out clause 13 and a related clause later, which the Greens picked up—I think it was clause 22. The effect of those clauses is to say that even if someone is adversely affected by something that has been done in breach of this, they have not got a private remedy.

The point I thought there was actually some sympathy for from some National Government members on the committee as well is that you can envisage a situation—for example, up the Clarence River—where the river has been diverted and it might now be flowing across someone’s land and they might think “Oh well, I’ve got the right here to divert the river.”, and they could be causing considerable harm to someone else. The council might say “Oh well, it’s happened now.”, and they might not do anything about it. Well, that person has forever got no remedy under this. They have actually got to convince the council that it should do something rather than actually having the right to do it themselves, even though they might be suffering that adverse impact. I thought that was unnecessary. It was not going to stop anything being done. No, it would not have stopped anything from being done, because this is only an enforcement proceeding that happens after things have been done in practice. It does not stop them doing it. It does not put them at risk for having done so. It would have just said that if they had gone too far, or if there was an adverse effect on someone else, eventually that could be addressed.

Anyway, that is a detail. This is a good bill. In respect of the other matter of substance, I do not think the change that is being made in respect of the powers of councils and utility operators is substantial at all; it just changes the period that they have got to give notice of what they do rather than changing what they can do.

The third leg of the bill—or the third leg of the stool—is the rehabilitation of Kaikōura harbour. I agree that that is a substantial change to the provisions of the Resource Management Act that would otherwise apply. I think it is necessary. I think we need to get on and start doing the excavation or the dredging that is necessary in order to make that port accessible—in part, to get the tourism industry and the fishing industry going again. I think the mix of people who are required to be involved, which is listed out in clause 19(2), is already quite an extensive list. I, personally, would have been happy for them to invite written comments from anyone else. I do not think that would have been too onerous for the consent authority to hear what other people thought. But the Government said it does not want it to go that broad, and that is fair enough. I can understand that.

I think the group that is left being asked to provide written comments is quite broad. It includes Ngāi Tahu and the relevant Papatipu Rūnanga, the various councils, the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians, Maritime New Zealand, various Ministers, Canterbury Regional Council—a lot of these people are democratically elected representatives of their local people anyway, and so I would have thought you can rely upon them to take a pretty balanced interest. I am very happy to support this bill in its third reading.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is great to get to this third reading of this very important bill. I just want to cover a couple of points. This morning I was talking to a farmer from the inland road, which demonstrates really some of the advantages of this bill. They have significant fence damage and significant stock- water damage, and the ability for them to just get on and make the changes that are necessary from an animal welfare perspective, as well as a management perspective, when communications are pretty difficult is very welcome. It is very much appreciated by the people within the electorate.

I would also like to point out the geographical isolation of a particular group of people who are, effectively, almost in a governance hole from a local body perspective: the people north of Ōhau Point, where there is the most northern slip on State Highway 1 north of Kaikōura, and up to Tirohanga Flat, which is where Marlborough begins. So between those areas they are part of Environment Canterbury and the Kaikōura council, but they are completely cut off from that council, whereas they are in fact really a part of Marlborough for all intents and purposes. So to have some flexibility around resource consents and managing the issues that are in front of them, particularly around the Clarence River, is really very, very welcome.

The harbour issue is something that is really important. At the moment in South Bay—both in South Bay and the harbour on the north side of the peninsula—the seafloor has come up significantly. It was shallow in the first instance in South Bay; it is now almost not navigable, except for an hour either side of high tide—2 hours a day. It makes it impossible really to do anything from that point. There are also cruise ships that plan to call into Kaikōura. The only way those people can get ashore from the cruise ships is by tender. That is simply not an option other than an hour either side of high tide. So something needs to be done quickly.

The council has moved quickly. My understanding is it is getting a report from an engineering firm today on possible options of how that might be remediated, and that is welcomed. It would simply be unfair for the community to have to go through the normal lengthy processes. That does not mean the environmental constraints and standards that we would normally adhere to will be trampled over—far from it. Those people rely on their environment around them and have a great respect for it, and it will not be damaged in any way other than is absolutely necessary. But it will get that harbour up and running again and help greatly for that community and that economy to get back on its feet. With that, I commend this very valuable piece of legislation to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to stand in support of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill at its last reading. As one of the local members in the affected area, I too, along with my colleague Mr Stuart Smith, have been on the ground first hand seeing the devastation that has taken place, but also the efforts that have been carried out by the community and the emergency services. I just, commend all the work that is being done at this stage, in terms of this bill.

The most contentious point has been the dredging of the marina, but that would be the most important emergency work that will need to be carried out in Kaikōura. We know that that is the only location where vessels can have passage in and out, and tourism is the lifeblood of that community. We are not just talking about Whale Watch Kaikōura. We are talking about other related tourism businesses: dolphin encounters; various charter boat fishing operators, once the fishing gets back under way again; and we must also not forget the cruise ship industry—we have various cruise ships that are not going to be docking in Kaikōura because they cannot get their passengers in safely to that community.

It is having a huge economic impact, and these emergency works are desperately needed. I know, having spoken with the engineers who have already been on site—they are already there—that it is a big job, but they want to swing into action as soon as possible. To get the necessary gear is going to be tricky in itself, and to ensure the availability of that gear, and also transportation—getting it in there safely—will be tricky given the issues with access. So there is a lot of work going on by a lot of people. Indeed, now we are doing our bit to make sure that we can progress these works as well.

I do not want to overly prolong this debate, but I do want to acknowledge the local hapū, Kāti Kuri, for their support and their work on the ground at this time. It is going to take some months before the residents of Kaikōura will be back to normality, but it is great to see that we have got an inland road and we have access through there.

We have schools back up and running. Slowly the residents are getting back to everyday activities, but we must not forget that there have been many families displaced or evacuated or whose houses have been destroyed or are probably going to be red-stickered—we do not know, but they are likely to be. Those families now are in emergency accommodation. They have moved on from the marae in Tuahiwi, and I do acknowledge the hau kāinga there at Tuahiwi Marae, who have done an outstanding job looking after those evacuated families. We do now have families that are no longer in their homes, no longer in their community. Now they are having to deal with the realisation that they have to adjust their lives in the medium to long term—their everyday situation with housing and just what their future might hold. I will be with many of those families tomorrow.

Likewise, just returning to Ngāti Kuri, I do want to acknowledge the hau kāinga whānau, the Manawatū whānau—in particular Hēnare, the chair of the marae—and Major Timms, whose son Justin Timms was in that kitchen cooking up those crays, feeding the hundreds of tourists who were stranded, and putting on that hospitality that we are renowned for to ensure that they were looked after until they were able to find safe passage out. There are many more stories that will come out of this, but it was the efforts of those people who responded on the ground—I understand Major Timms is now in hospital in Christchurch, so I wish him well and a speedy recovery.

It is those everyday stories that are relevant, because this legislation is all about getting those people back into Kaikōura, into a rebuilt community, and having their lifeblood, which is tourism and fishing and other industries, back up in business. It is not just the big businesses. The big businesses are supported by a lot of small businesses in that community. They are all impacted. It is not just tourism, as well. There are wonderful engineering firms, there are cheese factories and the like, all impacted by the passages into Kaikōura, and also reliant on, and supportive of, the wider community and the tourism industry, which has, pardon the pun, been stranded and beached by the earthquake and by the lack of access through to the harbour.

I am very proud to be supporting this legislation. I know that it is being done under urgency, but it has had the full cooperation of all parties around this House. I do acknowledge the Acting Minister of Civil Defence and all his officials, who have been literally burning the midnight oil. They have been reacting and putting in place all the necessary measures to ensure that we get this legislation in place and through this House. I have nothing further to do but to commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): This bill was considered for a relatively short time by the Local Government and Environment Committee, but I think during that period of time, almost just on 24 hours, we did some very good work. Others have spoken in this debate and also during the Committee stage about the changes that we made at select committee.

I just want to acknowledge the very good work that was done by a range of people that has enabled us to get to this point so quickly in the House to address this emergency legislation in a way that has enabled a speedy response by a Parliament and a Government that are keen to make progress and assist in every way possible to get the people of Kaikōura, Hurunui, and the wider region back on their feet again and under way. I would particularly like to acknowledge the submitters, who were able to gather together their thoughts—some in writing, but many of them over the phone—and present to the committee at very short notice yesterday. Many of the submitters have been, of course, themselves grappling with issues on the ground in the region for the last 14 or 15 days. That they were able to take the time and be prepared to submit is an even greater compliment to them and their organisational skills.

I want to also acknowledge and thank the officials and advisers who gave excellent, professional advice to the committee. Finally, I want to just acknowledge the good-natured, collaborative approach taken by committee members across Parliament. I think that they collectively did a very good job. I am looking forward to working with the committee again next week on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery Bill. I support this bill; I commend it to the House.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call in this final stage of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. I think I will start with Kaikōura Harbour and the significant works that are going to be undertaken there. I would just encourage the Minister of Conservation, because the Department of Conservation holds considerable information about the marine life and the natural character and values of the coast, to actually contribute that information to the process of deciding how the dredging and blasting work is to be undertaken. The Minister Gerry Brownlee said that is starting next week. That is great in terms of getting boats back into the boat harbour. Engineers can do some things, but they need to actually recognise the importance of the Kaikōura Peninsula—not just because of its natural values but because of its habitat for fur seals and a lot of seabirds, the distinctive cast limestone landforms, its cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu—to ensure that those blasting works, which will potentially obliterate some significant rock outcrops in the harbour area, are undertaken with as much sensitivity as possible in terms of reducing the effects on the marine environment. The Department of Conservation has a lot of information and it would encourage the Minister to ensure that that contributes to the process.

One of the things also, in terms of the third bill that the Local Government and Environment Committee will be dealing with next week, is an issue that the submitters, particularly from the pāua industry, highlighted on this bill. It was really unclear, in terms of official advice, what the status is of works that are being done by contractors for the network utility operators, particularly in terms of State Highway 1, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and the main trunk railway line in relation to spoil.

We all know the damage that the pāua industry has suffered because of the major uplift of the seabed exposing a lot of the pāua brood stocks, and the efforts that have been made to rehabilitate pāua by taking them and putting them in deeper water, but the industry is very concerned that if spoil is just simply pushed over the side because it is economically less costly to do that, then there will potentially be major impacts on remaining areas of coast where the pāua still exist. So there needs to be quite a careful assessment process. It may well be that some spoil is deposited on the foreshore in uplifted areas, but there needs to be an assessment of where that spoil is going to go.

What the debate in select committee and submissions highlighted is that it is unclear whether Transport Agency contractors and others will be using the emergency powers under the Resource Management Act to do that spoil dumping, or whether we need in the third piece of legislation to actually constrain that to ensure that it is done in an appropriate way, and that what may seem less costly and economically efficient in the short term does not undermine the reputation that Kaikōura has for a very special coast and marine environment. The scale of the spoil that is along State Highway 1 and the railway line—those big landslides—means that if it is just pushed into the sea and on to the foreshore, there will be potentially major sediment plumes in the water, it will smother areas of shellfish and remaining pāua stocks, and it will have quite significant ecological effects.

I hope that the Local Government and Environment Committee looks at how that is dealt with, and just clarifies what the law will be around how the spoil is disposed of, particularly around the south of the town, where it does look like there is the ability to get the road open in the short term. I hope that there is a thoughtful decision-making process there, which enables the transport links to be restored as quickly as possible but ensures that all options are considered and that the values of that coast—not just for transport but for the nature tourism industry and for the fisheries sector—also come into play in terms of decisions.

We are pleased to support the bill and would encourage all parties to consider the constructive approach that we have had on this bill when it comes to the subsequent piece of legislation. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking, firstly, the Minister Gerry Brownlee for his briefings and the ample information that he provided us with, and, actually, all parties for a very high level of cross-party collaboration, which made it rather a pleasure to deal with this bill.

Secondly, I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members themselves for their long hours of hard work, and especially the committee chair, Scott Simpson, who did an excellent job. For reasons that only those committee members will know, we may have to rename that committee the “Fish and Chips Committee”, but we will wait and see.

Thirdly, the officials should be thanked—and I do thank them too—for their late nights, their great service, and their excellent advice. Fourthly, I would like to thank and acknowledge the many submitters who in a very short time period made some really excellent submissions to the committee, which proved to be very helpful to us.

There are times when people in communities need to put aside personal and political differences, and this, certainly, is one of those times. People on the ground in the affected areas are getting together and getting things done, and we in this House must ensure that we create adequate powers to ensure that usually applicable laws and processes do not become barriers to quick and effective actions, which, as we know, are always needed to ensure speedy and effective recovery from all forms of damage resulting from events of this magnitude.

The result of this good process has been a good bill. Indeed, only clause 13 has caused any differences between us. The Government parties felt that clause 13 should remain; the Opposition parties felt it would be better that it be removed. What it does is to restrict the enforcement provisions in the Act to local authorities, whereas normally anyone can enforce. We in the Opposition parties felt it was better to leave that provision out so that anyone could enforce those provisions.

I do not agree with the Minister that this would in any way have been likely to delay anything, because I think there would have been very, very few people who would have felt the need to carry out enforcement proceedings themselves. However, there may have been some occasions when it would have been necessary. I felt that if landowners felt that other landowners had not done what they were required to do, they themselves could have enforced whatever provision was necessary. After all, you have to consider that the local authorities may not be able to respond in all cases they normally would respond to, simply because they are under such pressure at the present time, and are likely to be so for quite some time in the future.

The bill does very important things to assist recovery in Kaikōura. Firstly, it modifies the Resource Management Act emergency powers under section 330, particularly by extending time frames for giving notice and applying for consents. I am sure that will be much appreciated by many people, so that they will know they have got ample time to take the actions they need to take. Secondly, it allows rural landowners to take actions that they would not normally be allowed to take for the purpose of preventing risk to life and to infrastructure. These are things that they would do intuitively, without thinking about rules and processes, and we need to make sure that they do not get punished for that, or that they are not impeded in carrying out those necessary things.

Thirdly, it provides for rehabilitation of the Kaikōura Harbour. Apart from the roads to and from the town, it is probably the most important single piece of infrastructure that needs urgent rehabilitation. It is essential for all of the people of Kaikōura, and for all of the businesses that operate there. At the same time, there is a need to make sure that the environment is protected as far as is practically possible, because that is also important for the viability of many of the businesses that operate in Kaikōura, and there is no reason why we should not be vigilant to take care of the environment, even while we carry out those emergency rehabilitation works.

Fourthly, and lastly, I am glad to see that the bill allows for inclusive processes not just for the appropriate agencies that will be taking part but also for all people, so that they will be able to have a say. Many of them feel that they have—and they do have—local knowledge and expertise, which will be of value.

I do not need to say any more. We have delved into the detail of the bill earlier today, and, in fact, during the select committee process, and we now have what I think is a very good piece of legislation. Given that good process, resulting in a good bill, New Zealand First will be very pleased indeed to vote in favour of the bill, and we wish the people of Kaikōura all the very best in getting on with all of the hard work that they are going to have to do, now and in the future.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. It is indeed an honour to contribute to the third reading Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. As previous speakers have mentioned, the bill attempts to do three things: extend the emergency time frames under the Resource Management Act, address the permitted activity status for emergency farming works, and, of course, restore the Kaikōura harbour.

I support all previous speakers around the way that committee members—particularly, clearly, the Minister, with cross-party support—have addressed this particular bill. As our hard-working chair of our select committee, Scott Simpson, indicated—despite it being a truncated process, I do want to inform the members of the House, and any members of the public, that it is working and that we did undertake, although truncated, a form of public scrutiny in the form of submissions. We received approximately 13. We had four from district councils—Marlborough District Council, Kaikōura District Council, Hurunui District Council, Environment Canterbury, and Wellington City Council. We obviously had Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. We had inshore fisheries. We also had the rock lobster industry, the pāua industry. We had KiwiRail, Federated Farmers, Forest and Bird, the Law Society.

My short contribution in ensuring the passage of this bill is actually about a submitter who made a submission on behalf of the Kaikōura guardians—what is their name? What have I done with that? Is this not typical—sorry, it is the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians, and, in particular, Mr Ted Howard. I want to just acknowledge his submission, because he was actually talking about the implementation stage, and he really wanted to ensure that the local community, as best as possible, was involved when this particular bill was enacted.

I just want to quote—because he had a short passage that I would like to share with the House: “We are dealing with complex systems, and we have a great deal of local knowledge present in this community. We ask that at every stage of this process, that all plans and the rationale for them are made fully publicly available rapidly and that locals are given an opportunity”—he is talking about a few hours, and not more than a day’s delay at any stage “… to comment on those plans and that reasonable alternatives will be seriously considered.” When we had Mr Howard on the phone, I could sense his absolute love for his community of Kaikōura. He actually wants the best for it, and so do we. We want to ensure—in the passage of this bill and when we get to the implementation stage—that we think about people like Mr Howard, in terms of involving the local community. His message was not lost, particularly on this member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, around ensuring wherever possible that we involve the local communities, and that we operate in a very open and transparent process. That is what Mr Howard wanted, and it seems like a reasonable request as we see this bill’s passage through the House.

Can I please just end by adding my absolute word of thanks to the officials who supported the work of the committee, given that the time was very constrained. I want to acknowledge our hard-working officials who were sitting on the right side of you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and, of course, the work of our Parliamentary Counsel Office, and, obviously, our select committee clerks for ensuring that we did justice in examining the bill that was presented to us, and in a timely manner. I too believe that we have come back to the House with a very, very robust piece of legislation, which I am proud to stand up and support, and, like everybody else, I wish the people of Kaikōura and Hurunui the very best. This enabling legislation is only the beginning—the real test is actually implementation, and the commitment to getting the communities of Hurunui and Kaikōura back on their feet as quickly as possible. I commend this bill to the House.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I am speaking to the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill. There is a real need for this type of legislation, and it is a very good example of cross-party agreement, albeit, clearly, with a few exceptions. But it was very good, during the times I was on the select committee, to see how everybody was working together to come to some very good results.

I would like to put my thoughts out to those people—Ngāti Kuri o Te Kaikōura—and to the communities, north and south, all the way up into Marlborough, right up into the Blenheim area, and even people in the Marlborough Sounds, who were affected by this, to some degree. People around Seddon have had so many impacts in the past—and the same for people around Ward—and really this comes only a few years after they were hit so hard before. This time, it is right up through the Clarence, down the Kaikōura coast, the Kaikōura area, and then North Canterbury. The people of Scargill and Waiau experienced those aftershocks that were so savage and, effectively, caused more trauma than the original shakes that occurred back on 14 November. This has had a massive social and economic impact, and we are going to have to remain mindful of those communities for a long time to come.

Back into the parts of this particular bill, farmer after farmer has been affected—their stock water and domestic water, their fencing, roading, and tracking. Just the next day I actually gave water to a farming family with a large farm. You would think they would have no problems with water. There is a lot of water on their property. But nearly everything was impacted, and they had no certainty of water for their stock or for themselves at that time.

This bill goes a long way to redressing some of that by giving them the opportunity to get in and do some quick remediation to look after their stock. But also, increasingly, I am finding that the domestic water supplies in these stations and farms are affected. Some I have just learnt of again today.

While the remediation happens, it is unfortunate that we did not get Eugenie Sage’s amendment through. Even though this is time-limited legislation, there is a recklessness or an opportunism that will come from it by some people who do not actually have the heart to care appropriately for their neighbours. To have no real legal redress is going to be unfortunate. We are going to be totally reliant on goodwill. There has been goodwill built, as always happens in these emergencies, but I do not know whether that will last for long enough and people will be totally ethical about their behaviour when they have the opportunities that this bill gives them.

This affects, in particular, Environment Canterbury, the Kaikōura District Council, and the Marlborough District Council. I am hoping that they will, when they are looking at clause 19 and at the people who need to be consulted on some of the actions, broaden it out and make sure that there is proper opportunity for people to have at least a quick input. The committee report, and then, ultimately, the legislation, show very, very well what the benefit of even a short term of submissions and consultation can be. The changes that were put into this, through this little brief bit of submission time, have been very, very important.

It is important in Kaikōura to get the harbours corrected—the works and the rock and the seabed—to ensure that the tenders, the coastal tourism, such as Whale Watch Kaikōura, dolphin watch, seal watch, and others like the fisheries, can have proper access out to the sea as they always did. It is good that fish was acknowledged and included in the things that had to be considered in terms of effects. The wider considerations are in there. It is good that there are changes to make sure that the comments from those people who will be consulted are considered and reported on.

As I said, there is a very real need for this bill. I can see the practicalities of it instantly. The Green Party is pleased to be supporting this bill. We will be looking ahead to the other legislation that is coming. We are concerned, of course, as we have heard in the submissions to this bill, about some of the potential impacts, particularly to pāua and the marine environment. We hope that that will be treated very, very cautiously and carefully.

But, at the same time, let us get those roads open, let us get these farms operating well, and let us make sure that we are looking to the other things that are not being considered by these bills. I have had people coming to me today—tourism operators. The tourists have totally gone. They are scared to go there, yet the tourism operators could be operating their operation, which is rafting, in this case, down the Clarence River. We need to be doing what we can to support those smaller operations to get back into gear as well. So it is the roadworks and all of that, but there are other things we all need to be mindful of. My heart goes out to those people. The Green Party will support this bill. Thank you.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): It is very good, a real privilege, actually, to speak on this bill very briefly. Can I just echo the comments of others and give my thanks, as someone not directly involved, to the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, for, I think, taking a very good approach to this. It has involved, in a pretty consensual way, really, the other parties in this House, and they have acknowledged this. Can I just also acknowledge the select committee, the chairperson, and, as Denis O’Rourke called it, the “Fish and Chip Committee” for what they have done and the way they have worked through it.

This bill, of course, is absolutely vital for dealing with the issues that we have had post-earthquake. There is simply no other way to do it. We have all seen, quite a number of us now, I think, probably, firsthand what has happened there—the massive devastation. In my particular area, the roads, the slips are bigger than we have ever seen before on our modern-day highways. Conventional settings will simply not help us do what needs to be done—to do the sorts of things that Steffan Browning was just talking about: to give access back for tourism, for the milk tankers, for farmers, and for the friends and whānau down there. That, from a transport perspective, at least, is what this is about—access to get all of those things back up and running sooner than would otherwise be the case.

Of course there are other interests in this, and Eugenie Sage and others have talked about those environmental issues, the social issues. And that is why, throughout this bill and the others, there are good processes put in place, and that is very important. But that access is also fundamental.

Can I just say in the last minute or two of my speech what in a real sense this bill and the others, the suite of bills here, are going to help with. On the inland route we will be getting access back. I have seen, as I say, firsthand the emotion, actually, of some of those on either side of the cordon who wanted to get in to their farms or out from their farms to see friends and whānau. This is going to ensure we can do a better job there.

With State Highway 1 out of action, of course there is that other inland route down State Highways 63, 65, 66, and 67. It is a good road but not fundamentally built for the trucking, the tourists, and so on who are on it. It will help with that also. Of course, every day we are there maintaining that road and improving it, with about $50 million to $100 million worth of work, which is going to happen over the next few months on that. What is also vital there is getting some of those trucks off into ships. I was talking to the people at the Port of Auckland earlier today and they told me that they have, post-earthquakes, seen an uptick of about 1,000 containers going through the Port of Auckland down to Lyttelton. I think that gives you a sense of the trucks that would have otherwise been on State Highway 1 or the trains that are not taking that inland route, but the truth is that we need to. And we will, I think, from what is happening here, see more of that.

On State Highway 1 this legislation and the others will be vital. I think we can be somewhat more optimistic, perhaps, than we have been, possibly, over the next wee while about that. And on the southern side we have seen progress by the contractor Downer. It is going quicker than we thought. It is making really good progress, so that it is a matter of weeks, a small number of months, not longer than that to get access back, although there will be other work that will need to be done, of course. On that other, northern, side it is a longer, more complex job, but this will be sooner rather than later as a result of this bill. As I say, this bill is vital in helping us with the job we have got to do.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 5.40 p.m.